Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE KING

INDIA AND BURMA

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (MR. MICHAEL STEWART) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as follows:

I have received your Addresses praying that the Government of India (Governors' Allowances and Privileges) (Amendment) Order, 1947, the Government of Burma (Governor's Salary, Allowances and Privileges) (Amendment) Order, 1947, and the Government of Burma (High Court Judges) (Amendment) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the respective Drafts laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported His Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as follows:

I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (New Zealand) Order, 1947; the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (British Guiana) Order, 1947; the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Cyprus) Order, 1947; the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Mauritius) Order,1947; the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Northern Rhodesia) Order, 1947; the Double

Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Seychelles) Order, 1947; and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Trinidad) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the respective Drafts laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

CHINA (PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION)

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House—and a similar statement is, I understand, being made in another place—that it has been widely felt that, as nearly two years have elapsed since the war was concluded, it would be appropriate for a Parliametnary Delegation from the United Kingdom to pay a visit to China, our wartime Ally. The Chinese Government share these feelings and have intimated that they would warmly welcome such a delegation to visit China in October. His Majesty's Government for their part, cordially endorse the proposal. The Lord Chancellor and I were accordingly asked to select six Members for this purpose, two from the House of Lords and four from the House of Commons. The following have accepted the proposals to be members of the delegation:

The Lord Ammon.
The Lord Amulree.
The hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy).
The hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison).
The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts).
The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay).

The House will recall that a previous delegation from Parliament visited China during the autumn of 1942, in the darkest days of the war, and it will, I am sure, welcome this further visit as evidence of the continued interest shown by the Parliament and people of this country in China and will wish the members of the delegation every success in the discharge of this their mission of goodwill.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS).

Ordered, That the several Amendments to the Standing Orders relative to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made:

SCHEDULE.

Standing Order 12, page 99, leave out the Standing Order and insert the following new Standing Order:


(Posting of notices in case of tramway etc. Bills. (House of Lords, 12.))


(1) In the case of a Bill whereby it is proposed, in connection with the construction of a tramway or a trolley vehicle system or an underground railway or tramroad, to confer powers authorising any alteration or disturbance of the surface of any street or road—


(a) not later than the Twelfth day of November application shall be made in writing to every authority having control of any such street or road for directions as to the manner in which notice of such proposed powers is to be posted in the street or road;


(b) not later than the Twentieth day of November notice of such proposed powers shall be posted in every such street or road in the manner directed by the said authority or, if no directions have been received from the said authority within seven days after the said application in some conspicuous position in the street or road;


(c) the said notice shall be kept posted as aforesaid for not less than fourteen consecutive days.


(2) Where the said powers are proposed to be conferred in connection with the construction of a tramway or an underground railway or tramroad, the notice posted under this Order, in any street or road shall also state the place or places at which the plans of the tramway, railway or tramroad will be or have been deposited for public inspection under Standing Orders 27 and 36 with local government officers for areas comprising the street or road or any part thereon.


Standing Order 15, page 101, leave out the Standing Order and insert the following new Standing Order:


(Notice to owners and lessees of railways, etc., affected by proposed tramway or trolley vehicle system. (House of Lords, 15.))


(1) On or before the Fifth day of December, in the case of a Bill whereby it is proposed to authorise the construction of a tramway or trolley vehicle system either—


(a) crossing any railway, tramroad, tramway or trolley vehicle system on the level or by means of a bridge; or


(b) crossing any canal by means of a bridge; or


(c) otherwise affecting or interfering with any railway, tramroad, tramway, trolley vehicle system or canal;


notice in writing of the proposal shall be given to the owner, and (if leased) also to the lessee, of the railway, tramroad, tramway, trolley vehicle system or canal to be crossed or affected.


(2) Where the Bill proposes to authorise the construction of a tramway, the notice shall also state the place or places at which the plans of the tramway have been or will be deposited for public inspection.


Standing Order 39, page 116, line 9, leave out the first "and."


Standing Order 39, page 116, line 10, after "Planning," insert "and the Ministry of National Insurance."


Standing Order 39, page 116, leave out from beginning of line 33 to end of line 9 in page 117, and insert,—


"(7) Of every Bill relating to any company, body or person carrying on business in any part of His Majesty's dominions outside the United Kingdom—


(a) if the business is carried on in a Dominion as defined in the Statute of Westminster, 1931, India, Pakistan, or Southern Rhodesia, at the Commonwealth Relations Office;


(b) if the business is carried on in Burma, at the Burma Office;


(c) if the business is carried on in any other part of His Majesty's dominions at the Colonial Office;"


Standing Order 61, page 134, line 27, leave out from "published," to "this," in line 28 and insert "before the Bill was read the first time in."


Standing Order 61, page 135, line 6, after "given," insert "before the Bill was read the first time in this House."


Standing Order 158, page 187, line 25, leave out "the House has received."


Standing Order 158, page 187, line 26, after "Bill," insert "has been presented to the House."


Standing Order 236, page 223, line 28, leave out "38," and insert "39."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means].

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Disabled Persons

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now revise the arrangements for the employment of disabled workers so as to compel the less essential industries to take a higher percentage than they are required to do at present.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act does not empower me to fix a special percentage for an industry on the ground that it is less essential than others.

Mr. Davies: Will not the Minister agree that it is important that we should utilise every man and woman in this country in our industrial effort, and that some industries are in a much better position to employ disabled men and women than others?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, that is correct. It is not a question of the essentiality of the industry, but of the statutory power to make such changes in an industry which has distinctive characteristics as regards suitability for disabled persons.

Mr. Frank Anderson: asked the Minister of Labour the location of the proposed disabled persons' factory at Whitehaven; when will building operations commence; how many disabled persons are likely to be employed; and when will such employment commence.

Mr. Isaacs: A site in Whitehaven is being considered by the Disabled Persons' Employment Corporations; but negotiations are still in progress. When a site is acquired building will be started as soon as possible on a factory to take 50 disabled persons. I cannot at this stage give a date for employment to commence.

Mr. Anderson: Is it possible to utilise some of the hostels that are near Whitehaven and train these men now so that they will be ready when the factories are ready?

Mr. Isaacs: I understand that those hostels have been carefully examined and have not been found suitable.

Mr. F. Anderson: asked the Minister of Labour the position of the disabled persons' factory at Cleator Moor; when will the factory be in a position to employ disabled men and how many; when were the alterations commenced; and why is it taking so long for these to be completed.

Mr. Isaacs: I am informed that the adaptations to the factory at Cleator Moor have now been completed and that it is hoped to start working the week after next. Fifty disabled persons will be employed when the factory is in full production. Possession of three hutments was obtained in May and the necessary alterations were put in hand and completed as expeditiously as circumstances permitted.

Building Trainees

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied with the results of the Government's training schemes for the building trades; and what percentage of trainees have obtained employment in the trades for which they have been trained.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir; 90.5 per cent. of all building trade trainees have found employment in their trade and action to place the remainder continues.

Mr. Davies: Has not some difficulty arisen in respect of trained bricklayers, joiners and electricians, and if that is so, in view of the great demand for houses, would it not be good policy to discuss the difficulties with the trade unions responsible for them?

Mr. Isaacs: That step has already been taken some little time ago and we have every prospect and hope of overcoming the difficulty.

Major Guy Lloyd: Will the Minister say whether, in the course of training, the advantages of payment by results is preached?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, not so far as the Ministry is concerned. Our task is to see that the men are adequately trained.

Working Hours (Adjustment)

Mr. Attewell: asked the Minister of Labour which regional boards, their district or local committees, have completed schemes for the working of staggered hours in industry; and if any


completed scheme allows for normal working hours in such firms as use privately-owned plant.

Mr. Isaacs: I understand that while considerable progress has been made, no schemes have yet been completed.

Unofficial Strikes

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider issuing a regulation declaring all unofficial strikes to be illegal for the next six months or until the economic and financial crisis in which the country is now involved is over.

Mr. Isaacs: No regulation is necessary as these strikes are already illegal.

Sir T. Moore: If these strikes are illegal, why are they allowed?

Mr. Isaacs: They happen before we can prevent them.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Should the Minister not first make regulations about the parasites who live on unearned income and are on a permanent unofficial strike?

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us in how many unofficial strikes has legal action been taken against the leaders or anyone taking part in such strikes?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot give a definite answer without notice, but I cannot recall any.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the action which can be taken against these men who start unofficial strikes?

Mr. Isaacs: Circumstances in these cases are examined, but sometimes it is found that by taking precipitate action we might extend the trouble.

Major Lloyd: asked the Minister of Labour under what authority a trade union or branch of a trade union disqualify men who have refused to strike unofficially from participating in any voluntary fund and retain sums already paid by such men into the fund.

Mr. Isaacs: The position depends upon the rules of the unions, over which I have no control.

Major Lloyd: Is it not the case that the Minister has to shut his eyes and do nothing about the grossest victimisation of individuals who refuse to take part in unofficial strikes and who have their voluntary rights prejudiced by their comrades in the union?

Mr. Isaacs: I have had no examples of that kind given to me, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any, I shall be glad to look at them, but so far as I know no trade union, as a trade union, has acted in such a way. I am under the impression that some branches improperly brought pressure to bear, and in those cases the head office of the union promptly took action to the contrary. I know of no rules to permit of such action being taken, and we should consider such action, if taken, most improper.

Major Lloyd: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's reply, and according to my information it is 100 per cent. correct, but the fact remains that the union's action, which coincides with the Minister's reply, is unable to be effective.

Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be good enough to give me particulars, I will promise to make a full investigation.

Unemployment, Stornoway

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Minister of Labour what are the latest available figures of unemployment, giving males and females, in the Stornoway employment exchange area; what percentage the total is of the insurable population; and whether he has any estimate of the numbers which are not likely to be employment again because of age or other disabilities.

Mr. Isaacs: At 14th July the numbers of insured unemployed registered at Stornoway employment exchange were 1,094 males and 35 females. The total of 1,129 represented 21 per cent. of the estimated total number of insured persons in the area at July, 1946. I have no knowledge of any persons on the Stornoway register not likely to be employable again because of age or other disabilities

Colliery Workers, North-West Area

Mr. Thomas Brown: asked the Minister of Labour the number of coal-


mine workers over the age of 60 and 65 years, who have signed on at the employment exchanges in the North-West area, between 1st January and 30th June, 1947.

Mr. Isaacs: As this information was not separately recorded, I regret that it is not now available. However at 17th June there were only 78 unemployed colliery workers aged 18 and over in the North-West region.

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that the policy now being pursued by the National Coal Board in the North-West area is causing men, who are quite prepared to continue their work in the pits, to leave, and is he further aware that from 1st January to 30th June, 1947, 267 men of the age of 65 were dismissed from employment in the pits? Is he further aware that 63 men between 60 and 65 have also been dismissed, and in view of the dire need for manpower in the mining industry, will he use his good offices to prevent this policy from being further pursued?

Mr. Isaacs: I was not aware of the statement of facts given by my hon. Friend, but I promise I will look into them and see what we can do to correct anything that is wrong.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my own constituency this difficulty has been going on and I have had constant complaints of able-bodied men of 65 who are not allowed to work in the coalmines at a time when appeals are made for more coal, and will my right hon. Friend make a most urgent and speedy investigation?

Mr. Isaacs: Quite definitely. Would my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) be good enough to send me particulars of the places to which they refer, so that I can check up?

Major Peter Roberts: Will the Minister bear in mind that there are jobs underground which can be done by older men not necessarily at the coal face, and will he see that these men are employed?

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that this information has been supplied to us through the medium of the Miners' Federation and that his Department ought to be aware of what is going on?

Mr. Isaacs: I will look up the point, but there is a Coal Board and whether this information is in their hands, I do not know. I cannot do more than promise to look into the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE (INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS)

Mr. Lester Hutchinson: asked the Minister of Labour why the British Government delegate at the I.L.O. Conference at Geneva opposed the amendment moved by the Australian Government delegate that no worker should be discriminated against in any way or be dismissed because he was a member, or agent, or official of a trade union.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 17th July to the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. Hutchinson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that we can go too far in denying human rights in order to appease American big business?

Mr. Isaacs: I think that if the hon. Gentleman will read my answer, he will see that there is a misunderstanding as to what the resolution was.

Mr. Drayson: Can the Minister say whether the British delegation supported any resolution which laid down that a worker should not be discriminated against because he did not become a member of a union?

Mr. Isaacs: I gave a full answer on this subject in reply to the Question to which I have referred and another Question by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). Both Questions overlapped and were based upon a Press statement which was not a complete report of rather lengthy proceedings If the hon. Gentleman looks at the answer, I think he will find that that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Town Planning Exhibition

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange for the International Exhibition on Town Planning, representing 13 European countries and already shown in England, to be made available for Scottish interests.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I have already had this matter under consideration in consultation with the Scottish Committee of the Arts Council of Great Britain and interested local authorities, and I am hopeful of being able to arrange for the exhibition to be shown in Scotland in the spring of next year on its return from the United States.

Population Statistics

Mr. Berry: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated population of Scotland on the latest ascertainable date; and what are the populations of the cities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen, respectively, on the same date.

Mr. Westwood: The estimated total population of Scotland at 30th June, 1947, was 5,138,700; of Edinburgh, 485,700; of Glasgow. 1,108,500, and of Aberdeen, 187,800.

Mr. Berry: In view of the growth in population in the last ten years, can my right hon. Friend account for the increase?

Sir T. Moore: Is it not an admirable advance that English Members are beginning to learn something about Scotland?

Mr. Scollan: is it not the case that the invasion of Englishmen has now increased from .01 per cent. to 3 per cent. of the population of Scotland?

Wool Control (Tribunals)

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Wool Controller for Scotland acts as chairman of the tribunal to which appeal is made against the orders of the Wool Control

Mr. Westwood: The tribunals to which the hon. Member refers are set up in each area, of which Scotland is one, for dealing with appeals from farmers who consider that their wool has been undervalued on a requisition. Each tribunal consists of an equal number of authorised merchants and producers, and the chairman is the chief executive officer of the Wool Control in this area. This procedure is common to all areas and has operated satisfactorily throughout the period of wool control. In these circumstances there has been no departure from it on the transfer to the Agricultural Ministers of the responsibility for requisitioning the 1947 home wool clip.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is quite wrong for a decision which has been given by one particular individual to be referred to a board of which that same individual is chairman, and will he do something about it?

Mr. Westwood: I will certainly look into the matter, but I am not prepared to admit that it is altogether wrong because the appeal tribunals are in fact only advisory committees, and the final decision rests not with them, but with the Wool Control acting on behalf of the responsible Department.

Hydro-Electric Schemes

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many contracts, to date, have been placed in connection with the schemes of the Hydro-Electric Board; and, of these, how many have been placed with Scottish firms

Mr. Westwood: I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as the information is available.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the workmen employed on the schemes of the Hydro-Electric Board in Scotland are of Scottish nationality.

Mr. Westwood: No detailed records are kept of the nationality of the men employed on the schemes of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, but it is estimated that, apart from prisoners of war, about 90 per cent. are Scotsmen. So far as possible the men employed are recruited from the local employment exchanges.

Regional Hospital Boards

Mr. N. Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make an announcement regarding the appointment of the chairmen of the Regional Hospital Boards.

Mr. Westwood: I would refer the hon Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. J. Williams) on 15th July last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Fatal Accident, Strathblane (Inquiry)

Mr. Balfour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the


fatal accident which occurred at Strathblane, Stirlingshire, when a shepherd and an Ayrshire cow were killed by coming in contact with an electrically live barbed-wire fence; if proper investigation is being made into the matter; and what steps are being taken to prevent such fatalities.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. G. R. Thomson): I have been asked to reply. This fatal accident will be the subject of a Fatal Accidents Inquiry under the Fatal Accidents Inquiries (Scotland) Act, 1895. At that inquiry the cause of death and the circumstances of the accident will be fully and publicly investigated by the sheriff.

Transferred Tenants, Glasgow

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what alternative accommodation he is providing for the tenants who are being removed from their present domiciles at Rutland House, in the Tradeston Division of Glasgow.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): All the 17 families at Rutland House and 13 additional families at Crookston Camp were transferred to hutted accommodation in a former anti-aircraft camp at Garscadden on 31st July. The families co-operated in the transfer and on the whole the accommodation at Garscadden is better than that which they formerly occupied.

Mr. Rankin: Can my hon. Friend say if reasonable transport facilities to and from their work are available to the families concerned?

Mr. Buchanan: I should not like to say that in every case. Some of the men think it is rather far, but on the whole the families concerned have taken it very well. May I add that while transferring them we had buses to transport them and arranged for the fuel and food authorities to visit the camp, and that the whole operation took only nine hours. The families expressed the view that the Government Department acted in a humane and kindly fashion.

Housing (Advisory Committee's Report)

Mr. J. L. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet in a position to make a statement

regarding the Government's intentions for the implementation of the recommendations in the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee's Report, Modernising Our Homes.

Mr. Westwood: The Government have given careful consideration to the question of the improvement of existing houses, in relation to the housing programme. They remain of opinion that for the present the most urgent need is to concentrate on the building of new houses as much labour and materials as can be made available. They intend, however, to include in their housing programme provision for the improvement of existing houses in Scotland and to make available financial assistance to local authorities in town and country for approved proposals (whether carried out by the local authority or by other persons) in order to secure work of a good standard and accommodation at approved rents. Proposals will be worked out in detail in consultation with the Associations of Local Authorities and legislation will be introduced so that facilities may be available as soon as the situation in regard to labour and materials justifies this expansion of the programme.

Major Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House at last that this is all the Government intend to do in substitution of the Rural Housing Act?

Mr. Westwood: No, Sir, the Government are doing many things with particular relation to the development and improvement of agriculture in both Scotland and England, and this is only one of the steps that we are taking in the right direction.

Major McCallum: Will the Minister see that first priority is given to the modernisation or improvement of rural housing in Scotland?

Mr. Westwood: All I can say is that we will give the fullest consideration to the requirements of the rural areas.

Major Lloyd: My supplementary question had nothing to do with agriculture, as the right hon. Gentleman must have understood, although his reply referred to it; I asked whether or not this is the first instance in which the Government have made any reference whatever to the attempt to attack the rural housing problem or to replace the Rural Housing Act which has been abrogated?

Mr. Westwood: No, Sir, the hon. and gallant Member is entirely wrong.

Western Isles (Bridge and Pier Schemes)

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a decision has been arrived at regarding the proposed bridge to link North Uist, Grimsby and Benbecula; what the cost will be; what percentage and sum of the total cost will be borne by the Scottish Departments; what the cost of Portnaguran Pier, Isle of Lewis; will be; what the assistance available from the Scottish Departments will be; and when construction is to begin.

Mr. Westwood: The proposal to bridge the North Ford is being considered by the Minister of Transport and myself, but no decision has yet been reached. I am not in a position to give an up-to-date estimate of the cost of this project, but in 1944 the county council estimated the cost at £100,000. As regards Portnaguran Harbour, I offered last year to make a grant of £24,000 towards the cost of a scheme estimated to cost £32,000. The county council have since suggested amendments to the plans which would increase this cost and the matter is now being further discussed with their engineers.

Agricultural Drainage (Committee)

Mr. J. J. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has in mind measures for meeting in future the needs of Scotland in the matter of agricultural drainage.

Mr. Westwood: Yes, Sir, I have had this matter under consideration. In view of the importance to Scottish agriculture of adequate land drainage, I have appointed an independent Committee with the following terms of reference:
To review the operation of drainage schemes carried out in Scotland under the Agriculture Act, 1937, the Land Drainage (Scotland) Acts, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, and emergency war-time powers; to examine the extent to which further large-scale drainage work is necessary and desirable in the interests of efficient agriculture; and to advise what legislative or other provision should be made to enable such further work to be carried out.
With the permission of the House, I am arranging for the names of the members

of the Committee to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that not only large-scale agricultural drainage schemes are to be considered by this committee, since smaller ones are equally important in their way, and in my own case I have been trying for seven years to get one field drained which has been impossible so far because of the lack of labour.

Mr. Westwood: None of these questions will be ruled out of consideration so far as the Committee is concerned.

Following are the members of the Committee:

Joseph Duncan, Esq., LL.D. (Chairman).
Sir George Campbell, Bt.
William Graham, Esq., C.B.E.
George T. McGlashan, Esq.
Harry H. Nicholson, Esq., M.A.
Wilson M. Robertson, Esq., F.S.I.
John Sullivan, Esq.

New Town, East Kilbride

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the corporation for the setting up of the new town at East Kilbride does not include any residential representation; and if he will remedy this omission.

Mr. Westwood: In making appointments to the East Kilbride development corporation, I was anxious to secure the services of persons with wide experience in a variety of fields. While the corporation as now appointed does not include a resident of East Kilbride, I am satisfied that, in compliance with the alternative statutory requirement, it includes persons having special knowledge of local conditions there.

Major Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a suspicion in the minds of local residents that the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman's wish to have people of wide experience is confined almost entirely to well-known, notorious and lifelong Socialists?

Mr. Westwood: I am sorry if there is any suspicion of that kind in the minds of the people of East Kilbride. If the suspicion is there, it is not justified.

Mrs. Mann: Could I ask my right hon. Friend whether the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) resides in his constituency; and whether there is any suspicion in the minds of the people of East Renfrew that they are not adequately represented?

Major Lloyd: That is obviously another question, Mr. Speaker. It was answered at the last General Election and the same answer will be given at the next Election. Arising from the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he wishes to inform the House that the overwhelming majority of members of the new corporation have not, all their adult days, been notoriously associated with and voting for the Socialists?

Mr. Westwood: In setting up the corporation, I made up my mind that, irrespective of politics, I would get the best individuals I could to fill the posts.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Divorced Women (Widow's Pension)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider amending the regulations whereby a woman who has divorced her husband and is receiving alimony is not entitled to a widow's pension should that husband marry again and die before her.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. John Hynd): I regret that I see no grounds on which to amend the existing regulations on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Teeling: Does not the Minister feel that it is a grievous injustice to the first wife which is very much in the minds of many women in the country at the moment? Is there any reason why it should not be remedied?

Mr. Hynd: I do not recognise that this is a grevious injustice. The parties have been separated and there are no family ties. They are legally individual, single persons. We do provide a pension for the legitimate widow of a disabled pensioner. We provide both parties with the children's allowance, but I do not think we can extend our scheme to cover incidental relationships or past relationships of this kind.

Disability (Re-Assessment)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in cases of ulceration or tuberculosis where, on revision, disability is re-assessed as below 20 per cent. and a period is put to the responsibility of his Department, there is any provision whereby a disabled person who has suffered a relapse can claim either further financial assistance or medical treatment.

Mr. J. Hynd: Yes, Sir, where there is a substantial deterioration of a condition due to war service the assessment can be reviewed and there is no time-limit for the provision of treatment.

Mr. Skinnard: Is the Minister aware that that is not fully realised by the disabled persons concerned or by their organisations? Will he try to give the fullest publicity to the statement he has just made?

Mr. Hynd: I can only say that very wide publicity has been given to the provision in the instructions which we widely circulated. There were special instructions for individuals and their organisations, as well as the trade unions.

Mr. Skinnard: If I give the Minister the details of organisations which are in doubt about this matter, will he see that they receive the necessary information?

Mr. Hynd: Certainly.

Appeals

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Pensions how many appeals have been submitted during the six months ended 30th June to the independent appeal tribunals; and how many of such appeals have been accepted.

Mr. J. Hynd: During the six months ended 30th June, about 9,300 entitlement appeals were sent to the tribunals. I could not without considerable labour say how many of these appeals were heard during the period in question or with what result. 14,480 appeals were actually dealt with by the tribunals during the period. 2,860 were allowed, 4,660 disallowed, 5,130 adjourned and 1,830 struck out. Of the last figure, 1,130 were struck out at my Department's request because after further review entitlement had been admitted.

Sir T. Moore: In view of that answer, would the hon. Gentleman agree that it


was a very wise move on the part of the Conservative Coalition Government to introduce this Measure?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR

Visits to Germany

Mr. King: asked the Secretary of State for War if German prisoners of war who wish to remain permanently in this country may, on release, be first allowed a brief visit to their homes.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): It would not be practicable to grant prisoners of war leave to Germany before their release. My hon. Friend will appreciate that after their release my Department is no longer responsible for their administration.

Ruthin Camp

Mr. King: asked the Secretary of State for War if prisoners of war detained at Ruthin Camp 38 have facilities to attend Mass at the Roman Catholic chapel in the neighbourhood.

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir.

Hospital Patient's Death (Inquiry)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement about the death through carelessness, at Malton, of Kurt Bollinghaus who was, in contravention of the medical instructions issued, left under a certain treatment for three hours longer than he should have been; and whether he will have those responsible for this death removed from positions of responsibility in relation to German prisoners of war.

Mr. Bellenger: A military court of inquiry is being held and I cannot anticipate its findings. I should, however, like to take this opportunity of pointing out that camp hospitals are staffed by German medical personnel under the charge of a German medical officer.

Mr. George Wallace: In view of the fact that I have received a letter from a constituent who is convinced that we tortured this man to death, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the details will be made public about this unfortunate accident?

Mr. Bellenger: I regret very much the allegation in the Question. Obviously, I have to await the result of the court of inquiry. My hon. Friend will note that the camp hospitals are staffed by German medical personnel, under the charge of a German medical officer.

Mr. Wallace: I hope my right hon. Friend will not continue the misunderstanding. I am only conveying information. I am given to understand that I have misrepresented the case. That is not so. I received this information, which has been sent to my right hon. Friend, but unfortunately some people do talk, and a false impression gets abroad.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is not a Member of Parliament able, on his own responsibility, to deny a fantastic and ridiculous charge like that? If not, he is not fit to be in the House.

Mr. Bellenger: I appreciate the point of view of my hon. Friend. In view of the statement which he has made, I hope that he will give me the fullest evidence that he has and I will certainly go into it.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is there to be any recompense for the poor distracted parents of this man? Will my right hon. Friend bear that aspect of the matter in mind?

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Will not my right hon. Friend see that in future English doctors are in charge of these unfortunate people?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, certainly not. German medical officers are specially retained under the Hague Convention for this purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Transit Camp, Folkestone

Mr. Basil Nield: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is satisfied that the accommodation and, in particular, married quarters at Shorncliffe for noncommissioned ranks in transit from overseas are adequate and sanitary; whether rations are immediately available; and if proper arrangements are made to enable pay and allowances to be drawn.

Mr. Bellenger: On the assumption that the hon. and learned Member is referring to the transit camp housed in the Royal Pavilion Hotel. Folkestone, yes, Sir.

Mr. Nield: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that personnel coming home from overseas disembark at various ports, such as Shorncliffe? Has he any information in regard to the quarters there?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. I cannot give any further reply unless the hon. and learned Gentleman will give me more details of what he wants me to investigate.

Territorial Army (Civil Servants)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to fix any target number or percentage of recruits to be obtained from the Civil Service for the T.A.

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. It is not proposed to fix a target or quota for any particular profession or occupation. Every encouragement will be given to civil servants to join the Territorial Army, subject to the need to ensure the retention of sufficient trained officials to maintain essential services in war-time.

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for War what proportion of the total number of the 20,000 recruits for the T.A. up to the end of June were obtained from the Civil Service.

Mr. Bellenger: I regret that this information is not readily available.

Major Legge-Bourke: In view of this answer and the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the previous Question, will he bear in mind that many organisations are having considerable difficulty in getting under way after the war, and will he, therefore, do everything he can to encourage civil servants to join the Territorial Army, as every extra man from the Civil Service will ease the situation very considerably?

Mr. Bellenger: Certainly, but within the limits of the answer I gave to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's first Question.

Personal Case

Mr. John McKay: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that an officer in the R.A.M.C., particulars of whom have been sent to him, who did most of his service abroad and was due for Class A release in June, 1946, has

been given a Regular commission, binding him perhaps for 21 years without his consent and against his wishes; and if, as this officer is being penalised in his future civil career, he will have urgent inquiries made so that the officer's release can be effected quickly to enable him to take the university course in public health and obtain the grant in connection with this which has been secured if release be granted.

Mr. Bellenger: I am aware that this officer has since claimed that he did not wish to be granted a Regular commission. The matter is being investigated and I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. McKay: Can the Minister inform the House if it is customary that a man who is being granted a commission should sign a document indicating the period of service and other conditions attaching to the commission?

Mr. Bellenger: I do not know whether it is customary, but I am investigating that aspect of the question. I must say that I am surprised that this officer has only found out that he was granted a Regular commission against his wish six months after it was granted.

Sweet Ration

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will issue a sweet ration card to Army personnel which would enable them to purchase their sweet ration in civilian shops, as soldiers are unable to get adequate variety in N.A.A.F.I. canteens.

Mr. Bellenger: Arrangements are under consideration for personnel on the lodging list to buy their sweet ration in civilian shops, but I regret that it is not possible to adopt my hon. Friend's proposal for other personnel. It is necessary for troops generally to obtain their sweet ration through N.A.A.F.I., as civilian arrangements are not easily adapted to Service demands and furthermore, distribution to ordinary retailers would be upset by moves of units. In any case I am not prepared to accept the suggestion contained in the last part of the Question.

Mr. Chetwynd: Would my right hon. Friend look into the kind of sweets that the N.A.A.F.I. supply? I think he will find that my allegation is well founded.

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir, I am prepared to do that, and if my hon. Friend can give me any information in that respect, I should welcome it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (GIFT TO BRITAIN FUND)

Mr. G. Wallace: asked the Prime Minister whether the gift of moneys from the people of South Africa to the people of Great Britain has now been allocated; and if he will give details.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I have received an interim report from the Committee set up on the Gift to Britain Fund, and I hope to be able to make a definite statement on the allocation after the Recess.

Mr. Wallace: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the people of South Africa are acquainted with full details of what is done?

The Prime Minister: Of course.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Tourist Traffic

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much hard currency has been obtained so far during 1947 as a result of the Government's effort to attract tourist traffic.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): No reliable estimate can yet be given.

Foreign Travel (Currency Allowance)

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the import-export gap, he will reduce the maximum currency allowance for Britons travelling abroad.

Mr. Dalton: I would ask my hon. Friend to await tomorrow's Debate, when a statement on this subject will be made.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Treasury policy of encouraging our invisible export trade will be frustrated if this proposal is accepted?

Soldiers' Lodging Allowance (Income Tax)

Mr. Leslie: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has

been called to the anomaly created and the hardships imposed upon a soldier, unable to get barrack accommodation, who has to pay Income Tax on the lodging allowance of 2s. 6d. a day; and if he will consider making some allowance to mitigate what soldiers consider to be a decided grievance.

Mr. Dalton: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to his question on the subject on 11th July.

Mr. Leslie: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that 2s. 6d. a day for lodging allowance when a soldier, through no fault of his own, cannot get barrack accommodation, is really inadequate if he has to pay Income Tax on top?

Mr. Dalton: If my hon. Friend will look up Command Paper No. 6750 of March, 1946, the whole matter is there set out very fully. What we have aimed to do, and what the House accepted at the time as a reasonable thing to do, was to try to bring the soldier into the same general position as the civilian with regard to both standard payments and Income Tax liability. This is one instance of that.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether civil servants have to pay Income Tax on their lodging allowance?

Mr. Dalton: I will certainly look into that.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: If the soldiers are worse treated——

Mr. Dalton: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a Question, I will give him the answer.

Government Stocks

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the fall in the value of Government stocks is continuing upon a substantial scale; and what steps he proposes to take to reassure both existing holders and potential purchasers as to the stability of such securities.

Mr. Dalton: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on 15th July.

Mr. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether he considers that at present levels Government securities are a safe buy?

Mr. Dalton: I might indicate a private opinion, but I think it would be a mistake to make it official.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Does my right non. Friend not agree that this recession followed immediately on rumours of a Coalition Government and that when Tory hopes are dispelled tomorrow, a recovery may be confidently anticipated?

Sir Frank Sanderson: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer state whether there is any alteration in his cheap money policy or whether, taking the long view, it remains unaltered?

Mr. Dalton: We shall have a Debate which will no doubt cover a lot of matters and I had better not give snap answers to such questions as that of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. M. Phillips Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are firms of stockbrokers who have been advising their clients to sell their, securities and put the money on deposit in the bank? Is that not a contributory cause to what is going on in the City?

Mr. Dalton: I have no doubt that a lot of advice has been given by a lot of stockbrokers and other people to a lot of clients and others, and no doubt it has been discordant in some respects because some advise one thing and some another, but that is not my official affair.

Articles of Clerkship (Stamp Duty)

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a number of ex-Service men have paid Stamp Duty on articles of clerkship out of their gratuities; whether, in view of the decision to remit this duty, he will refund the amount so paid by ex-Service men between VE-Day and the date of the remission of the duty; and what would be the cost of this concession to the Treasury.

Mr. Dalton: The Finance Act authorises a refund where the duty became payable on or after 6th April last and there is no power to go beyond this. Figures are not available to show the cost of the concession suggested by the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Marlowe: As the cost would obviously be very small, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be a

gracious act to take power to make the refund?

Mr. Dalton: We had long discussions—I forget whether the hon. and learned Member took part, but perhaps he did—on this matter when the Finance Bill was going through its final stages, and I did date back the allowance. The original proposal was to make it date from the passage of the Finance Bill. I dated it back, in response to requests from different parts of the Committee, to the Budget date. We went into it very fully. The Finance Act is now law and I cannot change it.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does not my right hon. Friend recall that when we had the discussions on the matter on the Finance Bill, the suggestion was apparently made in some parts of the House that the Minister of Labour might consider whether the point involved could not best be covered by his Department? Has my right hon. Friend had any consultations with his right hon. Friend on that point?

Mr. Dalton: I remember the suggestion being made, and we can certainly look into it. I cannot say more.

United States Loan (Withdrawals)

Mr. Spearman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he accounts for the drawing of £74,441,000 from the dollar funds announced on 30th July; does he anticipate that withdrawals will continue at this rate; and how long does he calculate it will be before the U.S. Loan is exhausted.

Mr. Dalton: I hope to deal with these matters in some detail in the Debate which opens tomorrow.

Mr. Spearman: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer satisfied that there is no possibility of leakage through the sterling area?

Mr. Dalton: I would rather deal with this in a comprehensive way. I shall not seek to evade such questions as this, but it would be more convenient to the House if I dealt with the matter in the course of my speech.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he adheres to the answer he gave last Tuesday to the


hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) saying that:
There has been no substantial change in the drain during the fortnight since 15th July. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 257.]

Mr. Frank Byers: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is about the third occasion on which he has given this answer that he is not going to give information to the House until the Debate tomorrow? Could he say when he will speak in that Debate? It is important that the House of Commons should have as much information as possible on which to base its contribution.

Mr. Dalton: That will depend upon when you are kind enough, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to speak, but the answer which I have given is the formally correct answer. I hope that influences may be brought to bear to enable you, Sir, to catch my eye—[Laughter]—to enable me to catch your eye at a comparatively early stage.

Major Lloyd: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not highly improper that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should suggest that he hopes that influences will be brought to bear upon you? Would it not have been better if he had said that he proposes to try to catch your eye at a certain time?

Mr. Speaker: I noticed that he withdrew the first suggestion very quickly.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Would it not be better if the right hon. Gentleman told us what time, so that we could be here?

Soviet Loan Agreement (Interest)

Mr. Scollan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the income from interest on the Soviet Loan Agreement of 1941; and what would be the effect of the Soviet proposal to reduce the interest rate to ½ per cent.

Mr. Dalton: At present slightly over £1 million a year. After April, 1951, it falls sharply. The Soviet proposal would mean a loss of about £4 million over the whole period of repayment.

Mr. Scollan: In view of the fact that this country lost a trade agreement that would have given us one million tons of grain, does my right hon. Friend think that this obstacle could not be overcome by another attempt to negotiate?

Mr. Dalton: In the course of the recent trade discussions, there were a number of different points involved, and we did not feel that, on balance, we were able to accept the Soviet position.

Sterling Balances

Mr. Spearman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will furnish details of the sterling balances held in this country by the State and nationals of every country on 15th July, 1946, and at the end of the week ending 26th July;
(2) if he will furnish information regarding the extent of our foreign trade credits and other external advances on 15th July, 1946, and 26th July, 1947.

Mr. Byers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the sterling balances, with details, held in London by the Governments and nationals of each country or State outside Great Britain on 15th July, 1947, and on 2nd August, 1947.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give details of the sterling balances held in London on 15th July, 1946, and on 25th July, 1947, respectively.

Mr. Dalton: The collection of these figures, which involves securing and collating information from a large number of different sources, can only, in practice, be done at quarterly intervals.

Mr. Spearman: If the Chancellor cannot give us any details now, can he at any rate give the House an assurance that there is no cause for apprehension in this connection?

Mr. Dalton: I would hope not, but I would again prefer to deal with this matter in the course of the Debate.

Mr. Byers: That, again, is my point. Is it not possible for the Chancellor to give an approximation to the House so that the House may have an opportunity of making a considered contribution to the Debate tomorrow? Does the Chancellor realise the position of the House of Commons in this matter, where information will be given by the Government, very late in the Debate perhaps, and the House will not have an opportunity of considering it as it should do, having regard to the serious position we are in?

Mr. Dalton: We will do our best to meet the convenience of the House as a whole in this matter, but the form of the Questions that I am asked—and I am seeking to give a direct answer to the Questions on the Paper—is such that, as between two dates both very close together and so very recent, it is really not possible to give figures such as are desired, because it involves collection from literally hundreds, if not thousands, of different sources, from great numbers of banks all over the world, and so on.

Food Subsidies

Mr. Austin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a detailed statement outlining the withdrawal in part or whole of food subsidies since January, 1946; and whether he will indicate to the House any proposed revision or removal of such subsidies contemplated by His Majesty's Government for the remainder of the current financial year.

Mr. Dalton: As I explained in my Budget statement, I estimate this year an increase over last year's in the total of food subsidies. Changes in the selling prices of particular subsidised foods will, in accordance with the usual practice, continue to be announced from time to time by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food.

Mr. Austin: In view of the discrimination such a policy must tend to impose on working-class purses, would not the Chancellor seek to obtain the equivalent of these subsidies from increased taxation on distribution of profits, on Surtax and Death Duties, etc.?

Mr. Dalton: That is very wide of the Question.

International Monetary Fund

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the interpretation put by His Majesty's Government upon Article V 3 (a) of the Articles of the International Monetary Fund in relation to the liabilities they have assumed under Article XIX.

Mr. Dalton: Article XIX is concerned with the explanation of terms, and does not impose liabilities. I am, therefore, at a loss to understand the hon. and gallant Member's Question.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Would the Chancellor state whether all sterling contributed to the International Monetary Fund is convertible under Article XIX? Is it not a fact that under Article V 3 (a) that liability need not be assumed unless it be the policy of His Majesty's Government so to do?

Mr. Dalton: These are really very technical questions to deal with by way of supplementary question and answer. I am most anxious not to give any misleading replies to the hon. and gallant Member. I have given my answer to his Question on the Paper, and I would prefer not to be drawn into technical replies without notice.

U.K. Gold Balances, Norway and Czechoslovakia

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of gold now held in Norway and Czechoslovakia to the credit of the Bank of England under the payments agreements made with those countries.

Mr. Dalton: None, Sir.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: But can the Chancellor say how this is, in view of the fact that we have very favourable balances with both these countries on trading accounts and, under the payments agreements, gold should be laid aside under these conditions?

Mr. Dalton: Each of these agreements provides that the other country may in certain circumstances obtain sterling against gold set aside in our favour, but these circumstances have not arisen in their case.

Argentine Payments Agreement

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the convertibility liability incurred under the Argentine Payments Agreement to date".

Mr. Dalton: The net current sterling earnings of the Argentine.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the Chancellor state what that sum is, in accordance with the Question?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, I do not think it is advisable to state particular figures from day to day. I think it would be better to leave it.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If this sort of information is refused, how can the House ever understand what is happening on matters affecting our balance of trade?

Death Duties (Post Office Savings)

Mr. Sharp: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now informed the Postmaster-General that it is no longer desirable to freeze a Post Office savings account standing partly or wholly in the name of a deceased person until non-liability to Death Duties of the latter's estate has been established.

Mr. Dalton: This arrangement is required to protect the Revenue, but the net estate limit fixed by the Post Office regulations is being raised from £100 to £400.

Mr. Sharp: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this regulation does not apply at all as regards ordinary joint stock banks, and in view of his natural desire to increase savings in the Post Office, would he not give this matter further consideration with a view to removing this differentiation against those who invest their savings in the Post Office Savings Bank?

Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend has merely asked me about Savings Banks; he has not asked me about joint stock banks. If he will put a Question down, I will look into it.

Middle East and Europe (U.K. Expenditure)

Mr. Wilkes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total costs and all expenditure, civil and military, incurred by His Majesty's Government in Palestine, Greece, Egypt, Austria and Germany, respectively, from June, 1946, to the latest date; and the total value of all loans, credits and gifts-in-kind to the same Governments over the same or approximate period.

Mr. Dalton: I am having this information collected and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Wilkes: Would not the Chancellor agree that when these figures are published, they will show that this country has had more than its fair share in financing the recovery of law and order abroad,

and that the more publication these figures have in the United States of America, the better it would be?

Mr. Dalton: If my hon. Friend had put the Question down a little sooner, giving a little more notice, I might have had the information for today, but it requires a lot of collation of information. Particularly, I would expect that the answer to the first part of the supplementary question would be, "Yes, we have done our best."

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (MARRIAGE BAR)

Mrs. Corbet: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will extend the scope of the regulation under which the marriage bar in the Civil Service was abolished as from 15th October, 1946, so as to include those women who married before that date and were obliged to resign but who continued their service without a break on a temporary basis, such reinstatement being subject to the return of the marriage gratuity.

Mr. Dalton: No. The present rule was recommended by the National Whitley Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

European Volunteer Workers (Coupons)

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will issue extra coupons or dockets to farmers employing European voluntary workers to enable them to acquire furniture, linen, towels, etc., for the use of these workers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): Yes, Sir. I am ready to help in cases where the farmer cannot provide beds and bedding for these workers, and he should make application on Form UFD/1A which can be obtained from the local fuel office. The workers are given the basic ration and I should expect them to provide their towels out of it.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: Can the Chancellor say whether those dockets will cover both furniture and such things as linen?

Mr. Belcher: Yes, Sir.

Colonel Clarke: May I ask the Minister whether prisoners of war in process of civilianisation will also be able to receive these dockets?

Mr. Belcher: That is a somewhat different question, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put it down, I will do my best to answer it.

Timber Stocks

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the stocks of timber in the country are improving; and if it is now possible to meet all demands in this direction as far as the housing programme is concerned.

Mr. Belcher: Stocks of timber in this country are improving and provision has been made for more timber to be made available for housing in the current quarter.

Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the continuing shortage, which in some areas is holding up the building of houses, will the Minister see to it that no timber is used for the erection of stands or structures on the route along which the Royal marriage procession will pass?

Mr. Belcher: We do our best to ensure that the timber is directed into the most profitable channels. If the hon. Member has any case in mind where the timber is being misused, and he will let me have details, I will look into it.

Mr. Vane: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of timber which could be used for constructional purposes is being used for firewood because the farcical controls put on by his Department are ineffective?

Mr. Belcher: I am not aware of it. If the hon. Member will do as I asked the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) to do, and let me have specific examples, I shall be only too pleased to look into them.

Pottery Sales, Maybole

Mrs. Mann: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a firm in Maybole, Ayrshire, has sold 1,250 tea sets in the last two weeks; and if he will make it a condition when providing manufacturers of tea sets with the necessary materials that they should distribute their products equally amongst retailers in all parts of the country.

Mr. Belcher: I have received information that large sales of pottery have taken place in Maybole, and I am looking into the matter. I am satisfied that, in general, pottery manufacturers are distributing their ware as widely and as evenly as possible.

Mrs. Mann: Is my hon. Friend aware that this retailer boasts in a newspaper of being able to sell 300 tea sets, and expects delivery of 700 tea sets within two weeks, in addition to 1,250 cups?

Mr. Belcher: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have read the newspaper cutting referred to, and it is because of the information which we have received in the Department that I am having further inquiries made into the matter.

Sir T. Moore: But does not that show a very enterprising spirit?

Mr. Belcher: It shows an unfortunate spirit of enterprise which I do not think we want to encourage in this country at all.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill, notice of presentation of which appears on the Order Paper?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill, which is being presented today, is necessary to enable the powers given to the Government for the purposes of the transition from war to peace to be directed towards the full mobilisation of the economic resources of the nation in relation to the matters to be debated tomorrow and Thursday. Copies of the Bill will be available in the Vote Office later this afternoon, and the Government consider it necessary to ask the House to pass it through all stages before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Eden: Naturally no one would wish to comment before an opportunity has been given us to study the Bill, but I think that, in view of the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, it is only fair to say that if the Bill is as


wide as he appears to indicate, it is not conceivable in our judgment for the House to deal with the matter this week.

Mr. Morrison: I thought there was a general impression on the part of the Opposition, and the newspapers that support the Opposition, that there were certain serious economic and financial circumstances with which we are faced, and that they would be the last people who would deny to the Government any necessary powers to deal with them.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Sensible ones."]—I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be well for the Opposition to study the Bill, and then we can examine it. If it is necessary in the interests of the country for the House to sit a bit longer, we must sit a bit longer.

Mr. Eden: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I said nothing which could be indicated as denying to the Government any powers for which they could properly ask. What I pointed out was that it is the duty of the House of Commons to give proper examination to any granting of such wide powers.

RAILWAY CHARGES (INCREASE)

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): The House will recall that, on 21st July, in answer to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies), I stated that the pooled net revenues of the controlled railways were estimated to fall short of the fixed annual sums payable to the railways under the Control Agreement by £37 million in 1947 and by £28 million in 1948. I also stated that the estimated cost of implementing the recommendations of the court of inquiry into wages and hours of railway-men, which have since been accepted, would be £22 million in 1947, and £37 million in 1948. These estimates indicate total shortfalls of about £59 million in 1947, and £65 million in 1948 respectively. In the light of these figures, the Government have decided that the charges made by the railway companies must be increased to such an extent as will produce additional revenue of about £65 million in 1948, while making some contribution to reduce the liability falling on the Exchequer this year.
During the war, and the immediate postwar period, when passenger travel was at a high level, it was decided that ordinary passenger fares should bear a higher rate of increase, namely 33⅓ per cent., than other railway charges, increased by 25 per cent. We have come to the conclusion that this differentiation should now cease, and accordingly all railway charges will be raised to 55 per cent. above prewar with effect from 1st October next. This will represent an increase over present charges, of 16¼ per cent. in the case of ordinary passenger fares and rates for merchandise by passenger train, and of 24 per cent. in the case of other rail charges.

The question whether the relationship between the various types of charge should be varied, will be one for the Transport Tribunal who will settle the charges schemes of the British Transport Commission after considering the views of the Commission, and of bodies representative of all classes of users.

At the railway-owned docks, where the increase on certain charges upon coastwise liners and their cargoes is 15 per cent. over prewar, this low rate of increase will be raised to 25 per cent., but extended to all coastwise vessels and their cargoes. Other dock charges will be raised from 40 per cent. to 75 per cent. above prewar.

The yield of the increase in all charges is estimated at about £15½ million in 1947 (thus leaving the Exchequer to meet a balance of £43½ million) and about £65 million in 1948.

Captain John Crowder: Can the Minister give us the figures of what the Government had from the railways during the war years? How many millions of pounds?

Mr. Barnes: It varies between £190 million and £200 million during the war years, when there was a surplus over the controlled amount.

Captain Crowder: Per year?

Mr. Barnes: No, over the whole period.

Mr. Braddock: Will these increases apply to London Passenger Transport services?

Mr. Barnes: No, these increases apply to the four mainline railway companies.


The fares of the London Passenger Transport Board were dealt with some time ago, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that some increases in wages and improvements in working conditions have still to find their expression in the expenses of the London Passenger Transport Board.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is there any connection between increasing charges and deteriorating service, and the approaching date of nationalisation?

Mr. Barnes: I would point out to the noble Lord that this adjustment of the rates and charges of the railway companies to the present level of prices arises now because they were not dealt with by the Government during the war.

Mr. Symonds: In view of the increase in passenger fares, will my right hon. Friend see to it that now the age limit for children's fares shall coincide with the school leaving age, which has been raised by one year?

Mr. Barnes: I think it was the knowledge that I had to meet that position that caused me to adopt the position that the railways cannot continue to subsidise, many of these fares—in this case, to meet the raising of the age as far as children are concerned.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Has the right hon. Gentleman in mind any figure as to how much of this additional cost will be borne by exports, or was the decision arrived at without taking that into account?

Mr. Barnes: All relevant considerations were taken fully into account. I take it the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) is not suggesting that we should run the railways at a loss?

Mr. Hogg: I was asking the right hon. Gentleman for a figure.

Mr. Barnes: I am just stating that that was taken into consideration. I could not give a figure covering the whole field of exports.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: In view of the statement that the relationship between the various types of charge will be

one for the Transport Tribunal, and in view of the fact that under the Bill the Transport Tribunal may not deal with this for two years or such longer period as the Minister may direct, will the Minister inform us what steps he is to take to relate the relationship between the various prices charged, and the needs of industry during the intervening period?

Mr. Barnes: As this deficiency arises, as I indicated, because railway rates and charges were not adjusted during the war to the upward movement of price levels and wage rates, the Government considered that it was necessary to adjust these immediately. I do not necessarily accept the view of the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) that the Transport Commission will not deal with such a problem within a period of two years.

Mr. Piratin: In view of the fact that the present serious position is due basically to the inefficient capitalist transport system, is it fair that the Minister of Transport should place upon the British public the burden which is due to the present position? Would not a better way of getting over the present difficulty be to reduce the amount of compensation to be given to railway owners, and meet the burden in that way?

Mr. Barnes: I would point out to the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) that the question of reducing the interest charges on the capital invested in railways is adequately dealt with under the Transport Bill. If he will examine the figures I have given in this statement, he will see that roughly half the increase arises from the level of prices, which has so far not been met, and the other half of the increase is due to the direct upward movement of wages and working conditions, as those of railwaymen have moved in conformity with the general wage rates of the community.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I think we had better get on to the next Business.

BILL PRESENTED

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS) BILL

"to extend the purposes of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945," presented by The Prime Minister; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, Mr. Ede and Mr. Isaacs; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and be printed. [Bill 114.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 117.

Division No. 365.]
AYES.
[3.44 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Dobbie, W.
Keenan, W


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Dodds, N N
Kendall, W. D


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Kenyon, C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
King, E. M


Alpass, J. H.
Dye, S.
Kinley, J.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kirby, B. V.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Edelman, M.
Kirkwood, D


Attewell, H. C.
Edwards, A, (Middlesbrough, E.)
Lavers, S.


Austin, H. Lewis
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J J


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Ayles, W. H.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Leslie, J. R.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lever, N. H.


Baird, J.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Balfour, A.
Ewart, R.
Lewis, J (Bolton)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J
Fairhurst, F.
Lipson, D. L.


Barstow, P. G.
Farthing, W. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Battley, J. R
Fernyhough, E.
Logan, D. G


Bechervaise, A E
Field, Captain W. J.
Longden, F.


Belcher, J. W
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lyne, A. W


Benson, G.
Follick, M.
McAdam, W.


Berry, H.
Foot, M. M.
McEntee, V. La T.


Bing, G. H. C
Foster, W. (Wigan)
McGhee, H G.


Binns, J.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McGovern, J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Gaitskoll, H. T. N.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Blenkinsop, A.
Gallacher, W.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Blyton, W. R
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McLeavy, F.


Boardman, H
Gibbins, J.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Gilzean, A.
Mainwaring, W. H


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Goodrich, H. E.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Braddock, T (Mitcham)
Gordon,-Walker, P. C.
Marshall, F (Brightside)


Bramall, E. A.
Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)
Mathers, G


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Grenfell, D. R
Medland, H. M


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Grey, C. F.
Mellish, R. J.


Brown, George (Belper)
Grierson, E.
Middleton, Mrs. L


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mikardo, Ian


Buchanan, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.


Burden, T W
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Moody, A. S.


Burke, W. A
Gunter, R. J.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H (Sheffield, C.)


Byers, Frank
Guy, W H.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Carmichael, James
Haire, John E, (Wycombe)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hale, Leslie
Morrison, Rt Hon H. (L'wish'm, E.)


Chater, D.
Hall, W. G.
Mort, D. L


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hardy, E. A
Moyle, A.


Cluse, W. S
Harrison, d.
Nally, W.


Cobb, F. A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Naylor, T. E


Cocks, F. S.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Nicholls, H R. (Stratford)


Coldrick, W.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Collick, P.
Herbison, Miss M
Oldfield, W. H


Collindridge, F
Hicks, G.
Orbach, M.


Collins, V. J.
Holman, P
Paget, R. T


Colman, Miss G. M
House, G.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Cook, T. F
Hoy, J.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N. W.)
Hubbard, T.
Parker, J.


Corlett, Dr. J
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Parkin, B. T.


Cove, W G
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Crawley, A
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A.


Cunningham, P.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Peart, Thomas F.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Piratin, P.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Irving, W. J.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jay, D. P. T.
Popplewell, E.


Davies, S. O (Merthyr)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Deer, G.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Diamond, J.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Price, M. Philips




Pritt, D. N.
Solley, L. J.
Viant, S. P.


Pryde, D. J
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)


Ranger, J.
Sparks, J. A.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Rankin, J.
Stamford, W
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Roes-Williams, D R
Steele, T.
Weitzman, D.


Rhodes, H.
Stephen, C.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Stross, Dr. B.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Robens, A
Stubbs, A. E.
West, D. G.


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Summerskill, Dr Edith
White, H (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Swingler, S.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Sylvester, G. O.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Royle, C.
Symonds, A. L.
Wilkes, L


Sargood, R
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Scollan, T.
Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Segal, Dr. S.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Sharp, Granville
Thomas, D E (Aberdare)
Willis, E.


Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wise, Major F. J


Shinwell Rt Hon E
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Woods, G. S.


Shurmer, P
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wyatt, W.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thurtle, Ernest
Yates, V. F.


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Tiffany, S.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Skeffington, A. M.
Titterington, M. F.
Younger, Hon Kenneth


Skeffington-Lodge, T C.
Tolley, L.
Zilliacus, K


Skinnard, F. W.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G



Smith, S H (Hull, S. W.)
Usborne, Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Snow, Capt. J. W.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Mr. Simmons and. Mr. Hannan.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Nield, B. (Chester)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Head, Brig. A. H.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Baldwin, A. E
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Baxter, A. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Beechman, N. A
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Pickthorn, K.


Bennett, Sir P
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Prescott, Stanley


Bossom, A. C
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Raikes, H. V.


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Roberts Maj. P. G (Ecclesall)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bullock Capt. M
Langford-Holt, J.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Challen, C
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Savory, Prof. D. L


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Scott, Lord W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lennox-Boyd, A T.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Clifton-Brown. Lt.-Col. G
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Smith, E. P (Ashford)


Cole, T. L.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Spearman, A C. M.


Crowder, Capt. John E
Low, Brig. A. R. W
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)


De la Bère, R
McCallum, Maj. D
Sutcliffe, H


Digby, S. W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A (P'dd'ton, S.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D
McKie, J H. (Galloway)
Teeling, William


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V G (Penrith)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thomas, J. P. L (Hereford)


Drayson, G. B
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thorneycroft, G E. P (Monmouth)


Drewe, C
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Touche, G. C


Dugdale, Maj Sir T. (Richmond)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Duthie, W. S
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Walker-Smith, D.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marlowe, A. A. H
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Marsdon, Capt. A.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr E. L.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P. M
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Galbraith, Cmdr T. D.
Molson, A. H. E.
Willoughby da Eresby, Lord


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Morris-Jones, Sir H
York, C.


Gridley, Sir A.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)



Grimston, R. V.
Mott-Radclyffe. Maj. C. E
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Nicholson, G.
Major Conant and




Major Ramsay.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

3.53 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
I understand that, because there is general consent to the Amendments which come from another place, and which appear on the Order Paper, with the exception of two which are contested, it would serve the convenience of hon. Members in all quarters of the House if you, within your discretion, Sir, agreed to put them en bloc. If that were done, it would save hon. Members a considerable amount of time.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: If it is within your competence to do as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, I feel that it would be for the convenience of everybody. It would save a good deal of time and enable us to devote rather more time to the two points on which the Government are not going to accept the Amendments proposed from another place.

Mr. Speaker: I must say, as one who sat up all last night, that I am very grateful for the suggestion. If the House allows, I propose to do what I have done before. I will have the lines called, and if any hon. Member wants to stop to query any point, then he may indicate. Otherwise, we will go through the Amendments page by page.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 44, insert:

NEW CLAUSE A.—(Special provision for electricity holding companies.)

(1) This section applies to any electricity holding company who shall, not later than three months after the passing of this Act, serve on the Minister notice in writing stating that they wish this section to apply to them by reason of the fact that they were, at the date of the last audited balance sheet of the Company, before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, either directly

or indirectly, the beneficial owners of extraneous assets specified in general terms in such notice and being property situate outside Great Britain, or being property situate within Great Britain which is not reasonably required for the efficient and economical administration or operation of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers or power station company:

Provided that no such notice as aforesaid shall have effect unless accompanied by a certificate signed by the auditor of the company and stating that the company was at such date as aforesaid the beneficial owner of the extraneous assets specified in the notice.

(2) Every company to which this section applies shall be deemed not to be an electricity holding company for the purposes of the provisions of this Act.

(3) If, not later than three months after any company to which this section applies shall have served a notice under subsection (1) of this section, the Central Authority shall, by notice in writing to the company, require that all such, if any, of the property of the company as is reasonably required for the efficient and economical administration or operation of the undertaking of any authorised undertakers or power station company shall vest in the Central Authority, then the beneficial interest of the company in all such property shall, on the vesting date or one month after the date of such notice, whichever shall be the later, vest, by virtue of this Act and without further assurance, in the Central Authority.

(4) There shall be paid by the Central Authority to the company by way of compensation for the property vested in accordance with the preceding subsection such sums as may be agreed between the Central Authority and the company or, in default of agreement, as shall be determined by arbitration under this Act as the fair market value of the beneficial interest of the company in such property.

(5) Not later than two months after any company to which this section applies shall have served a notice under subsection (1) of this section, either the Central Authority, or any person employed by the company wholly or mainly in the administration or operation of any one or more authorised undertakers of power station companies, may serve upon the other and upon the company a notice in writing requiring that any agreement for personal services made between the company and such person, and in force at the vesting date, shall apply and have effect as though such person had been employed by an electricity holding company, and thereupon the employment of such person by the company shall, for the purposes of the provisions of this Act, be deemed to be employment by an electricity holding company.

(6) Any question arising under this section as to whether any property is reasonably required for the efficient and economical administration or operation of any authorised undertakers or power station company, or as to whether any person was employed wholly or mainly in the administration or operation of any one or more authorised undertakers or power station companies, shall be determined, in default of agreement, by the Minister.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is designed to deal with certain holding companies, and to provide that in the event of a holding company which falls within the description contained in Clause 13, having what are described as extraneous assets or assets which are not required for the convenience and economic operation of a statutory electricity undertaker, that holding company can opt to be treated as being outside the Bill. The proposal is that the company should give notice showing that it has some extraneous assets or some other such assets not required for the purpose of a statutory electricity undertaking. If the company gives that notice and the notice is supported by a certificate from an auditor, then the company should have an indisputable right to be treated as a non-holding company and, therefore, as not being within the purview of Clause 13. I must ask the House to reject this Amendment and there are a number of reasons which I would like to urge in support of that submission.

I would like, to contrast the holding companies, as they are described in Clause 13, and the holding companies which would be given the right to opt out of the Bill under this new Clause. Under Clause 13, holding companies do not fall within its purview unless their holdings in their own subsidiaries consisting of statutory electricity undertakers exceed three quarters of their total assets. Therefore, only a limited number of holding companies are included. I am told that, as a matter of figures, there are some n large holding companies which come within the statutory description contained in Clause 13, and that there are some nine outside. The new Clause from another place would enable those companies—any of those 11 companies which are prima facie within the scope of the Clause—to say that they have something in the nature of assets which can be described as extraneous or unnecessary in the sense which I have indicated, and can claim to be outside the Bill. There is no limit upon the smallness in value of the assets which qualify a holding company to be treated as outside the scope of Clause 13. As the new Clause is drafted, if any of the II holding companies which are now within the scope of Clause 13 can claim

to possess any trifling asset, almost valueless in point of value, if it is an extraneous asset—a foreign asset—or an asset which may be said to be not necessary for the purpose of operating a statutory undertaking, it has an indisputable right to be outside the Bill.

That is a perfectly impossible position. I ask hon. Members to think what it really means. If a large electricity holding company which in every other way complies with the requirements to bring it within Clause 13, can say, "We have as part of our assets no more than £100 invested abroad," it is given the right to claim to be outside the Bill. In my submission the new Clause makes complete and absolute nonsense of Clause 13. One might just as well strike out of Clause 13 the provisions which relate to holding companies There is no point in bringing them in if we give the right to opt out in a way in which they cannot be stopped. After all, practically every large company—I am sure every one of the II electricity holding companies which are now within the Clause—must be able to point to some asset which is not in point of fact presently necessary for the purpose of operating a subsidiary statutory electricity undertaking, or some asset which can be described as a foreign asset. Virtually, this new Clause would give the right to every one of the companies brought in, because they comply with the requirements of Clause 13, the right to opt out. The effect of that is to nullify a part of Clause 13 which is an important part, and which is part of the framework upon which is built the machinery for bringing within the scope of the Bill the undertakings to which it extends, and, if we emasculate the Clause in that way, we would, as a matter of logic, have to recast the whole thing.

4.0 p.m.

The only argument, so far as I know, which has been put forward in support of the new Clause is that there is no reason why, if an electricity holding company has some asset which it wants to use and retain, and which will not be taken over by the Central Authority, it should be wound up and dissolved in accordance with the requirements of Clause 16. That is really the only reason which has been put forward for emasculating Clause 13 in the way in which it is sought to do. It is simply and solely a matter of convenience. Let us suppose that we have a company, 98 per cent.


of whose assets will be taken over when the concern is nationalised, but which has 2 per cent. of assets left which can be described as extraneous assets or assets unnecessary for the purpose of that company. It is suggested that it should be allowed to remain in existence in order to retain possession of the 2 per cent. of other assets instead of being dissolved in accordance with Clause 16 (6). I would submit that there is no possible case for that.

After all, what would happen? The securities of that undertaking will be quoted, and compensation on the Stock Exchange value will be paid to the holders of those securities. We take the view that the Stock Exchange basis of compensation is perfectly fair and proper. Supposing we do have an electricity holding company of that sort. Fair compensation will be paid, the bulk of its undertaking will be taken over by the State, and there is no reason in logic to keep it in existence when it is only a shadow of its former self, and when it cannot really be said to be the same company in any real sense of the term. It is right and proper that, when nearly all its assets have been acquired by the State, it should be dissolved, and, if it is desired subsequently to reconstruct it, or to bring in another company for the purpose of acquiring the remaining assets, that would be another matter. So far as this new Clause is concerned, we feel that it would make nonsense of Clause 13—

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The learned Solicitor-General said something about bringing another company into being. Would he expand what he has in mind on that point?

The Solicitor-General: I did not catch the early part of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the holding company, if it wanted to carry on, could found a further company in order to take over the assets that were extraneous. Would he expound that point and say how that could be done?

The Solicitor-General: If the former shareholders of the company desired to float a new company and acquire the assets, there is nothing to stop them doing so. The only object of the new Clause

would be to eliminate that step. I will put it, as a matter of business sense, that it is right that, if a company carrying on an undertaking loses that undertaking, so that it is not really the same company at all, that company should be dissolved, because it is only a shadow of its former self. For those reasons, the new Clause does not really add anything to the Bill, but merely makes part of it needless.
We have taken the trouble to find out what assets will be affected in the II companies. We find, for example, that it will apply in two cases. In one, a transport undertaking is carried on by one of these companies and the likelihood is that, when the Transport Bill becomes an Act, that asset would, in any case, be acquired by the State, if it is a long-distance haulage undertaking, as I believe it is. In the ordinary course, it will come under transport nationalisation. Another of the companies has, I believe, a holding of foreign investments, which can quite easily be valued. Another has something in the nature of an estate company, judging by the names in which certain shares are held. In each of these cases, there should be no difficulty about the valuing of the assets. I, therefore, ask the House to say that no case has been made out for this new Clause and, accordingly, to reject it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Like you, Sir, I have spent the last night out of bed, and this admittedly, is a complicated subject, which is none the easier to understand by this method of approach. I think there was an oversimplification on the part of the Solicitor-General when he said that there was no justification for the new Clause. The fact is that we have been wrestling with the problem which the new Clause represents ever since the Committee stage of the Bill, and the Government have looked with favour upon our attempts at trying to find some method or other of dealing with this question. The Parliamentary Secretary himself, on the ninth day of the Committee proceedings, pointed out that this did represent a real difficulty, and that, if it were not for the managerial functions which the holding companies represented, he did not really contend very strongly that it was necessary to take them over. He said:
If, on the other hand, it should be argued that there was some extremely important


reason why holding companies should be allowed to go on as separate entities and not be taken over, we might consider that,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 25th March, 1947; c. 395]
It was agreed in a friendly spirit with my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), and again, it was referred to during the Report stage, when it was agreed that there had been no stonewall opposition in the other place.
My first point is that, quite clearly, there is something here which does require to be dealt with. It is clear that it does not raise any moral issues in the case of the companies, for those with 74 per cent. are on one side of the line, and those with 26 per cent. on the other. It is merely a matter of administrative convenience which we are discussing, and we fully agree that it applies to a relatively small number of cases, though that is all the more reason why we should settle with even a small number of cases. I think that the Solicitor-General's argument seemed, in a way, to fall into the same error in which the Lord Chancellor seemed to be when dealing with the matter in another place. The Lord Chancellor himself said that he had not had very much time to consider it, and he added:
I only saw this new Clause a few moments ago.
Therefore, he seemed to consider—and in some way or other I noticed a trace of this in the arguments of the Solicitor-General—that there was an infringement of the Stock Exchange valuation basis. There is no suggestion in the new Clause of any infringement of the basis on which the Government have now agreed as to the Stock Exchange value being taken as the basis upon which compensation is to be paid. That is the first point. Secondly, there is no suggestion whatever that any electricity assets are, in any way, being taken out of nationalisation by the new Clause. We are agreed upon that, but it did seem to me that the Solicitor-General was rather suggesting that this new Clause removed some important assets from the ambit of nationalisation.
If we are agreed that, first, the stocks of the electricity holding companies will be nationalised without any question, and, second, that they will be nationalised on the basis of Stock Exchange values, as

the Government intend, then it is clear that we must be down on some very narrow point indeed. The narrow point is simply this. Is it necessary first to annihilate the company, and then to produce some other device to bring these assets to life again? A holding company might be compared with those tanks which exist in restaurants in more fortunate countries than ours, where live fish can be seen swimming about, and where the customer can designate a particular fish, and have it taken out and cooked. No one objects to the Government designating the particular fish which they wish to have taken out of its container and cooked. All we say is that it is unnecessary to break the container, and leave all the fish lying on the carpet, and then to pick them up and put them into an ad hoc container, and try to revivify them. How much simpler it would be to leave the container. Take the fish out and let them be dealt with, but why deal with other creatures which the Government do not intend to take out—lobsters, crabs, or suchlike—and, for that purpose, go through the elaborate business of destroying the container, and then building it up again? For various reasons, the companies do not see why that process should be carried out.
There are, in fact, at least three distinct reasons why it should not be carried out. First of all, the holding companies have other duties. On the Committee stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) gave examples of those other duties. He mentioned a company of his own which was actively engaged in other work; until it knew where it stood under this Bill, the other work was held up altogether. Clearly, that is inadvisable. Secondly, there are companies in other walks of industry over which the penumbra of nationalisation is extending, which, similarly, may find themselves held up. There are the gas companies, for instance. I had understood that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department were themselves impressed with the desirability of doing nothing which would slow up the work of analogous companies in other walks of industry. Thirdly, there is the point to which the hon. and learned Solicitor-General referred, that one, at least, of these companies was possessed of foreign investments. It was brought out in discussions in another place that the title


there might not be held to be valid, and, indeed, in this case, the fish would rapidly die if left on the carpet. It would very quickly have to be picked up and put into another container.
There are a number of reasons why we should not conduct this somewhat elaborate mechanism when a Clause has been put on the Order Paper which would do all that the Government have asked for in any of their demands, without the necessity of what one might call the "shattering" procedure. The Government, first of all, ask for the assets. They get them under the Clause. Secondly, they ask for the Stock Exchange valuation. They get that under the Clause. Thirdly,—and this was the demand of the Parliamentary Secretary—they asked for "the managerial staffs. They get them also. Fourthly, they said that there may be other oddments necessary to carry out the work of the holding company, and they also get these. Having got all these things, it seems to us that there must be some woollen curtain, let us say, between the two of us, which is preventing us understanding each other's point of view. Frankly, I do not understand why, the point having been narrowed down so much, it is impossible for us to come to a reasonable composition on the matter.
4.15 p.m.
We have put down a Clause which comes from another place, and which seems to meet all the points. If there were any further suggestion which the Government have to make, we would be only too happy to fall in with it. The main point is, why destroy the holding companies which actually exist? Why find it necessary to go through the somewhat elaborate procedure of reconstituting some other organisation to deal with assets which, in some cases, will need to be carried on? Now that we are on the last stages of a very long Bill, over which a great deal of argument has passed in remarkably good temper, why not shake hands across the Floor of the House and come to some mutual arrangement? For all these reasons, I hope that the Government have not said their last word on the matter, and that they will be able to find a way over the small space which divides us, and thus enable us to come to an adequate settlement upon it.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: My right hon. and gallant Friend has covered most of the ground on this subject, but it seems to me that the Government are really mistaking the purpose which they are setting out to achieve. They have said, time and time again, that they only wish to take over the assets of the holding companies in so far as they are electrical. Equally it was made clear in another place that they did not want the extraneous assets. It seems to me that the real question on which we differ from the Government is how that policy can best be carried out. We say, in the case of the holding company, "Take from it what you want, but leave what you do not want." The Government, however, say, "No, we are going to take the lot, and then, if and when it may be found desirable for either us to sell or the company to buy back that which the Government do not want, well and good."
I was very interested to hear that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, as did the Lord Chancellor in another place, offers this solution again today. But I think that, if he looks at it, he will see that solution is impossible, because the first requirement would be that the shareholders of the holding company would have to put up a completely fresh lot of capital in order to acquire their own property. I think he will agree that if anything makes nonsense, that does. Again, he did not answer the question about the price at which the shareholders would be entitled to buy back their own property. Would it be at Stock Exchange valuation, or at market value? The Lord Chancellor, in another place, as reported in adjoining columns of HANSARD, said first one and then the other. He started by giving an indication that he thought it would be at Stock Exchange prices, and, in the next column, said at market prices. I think that if the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at that Debate again, and considers the implications of what was suggested, he will see that not only is this suggestion absolutely impracticable, but also thoroughly unfair to all parties concerned.
It would be fair to say that we on this side of the House consider that a holding company should be treated in exactly the same way as any other holder of electrical shares. If, for instance—and I think this is a fair parallel—I, as an investor, have


£100 invested, £95 in an electrical undertaking and £5 in an outside undertaking, and the Government take my electrical shares from me, they would not take the whole £100, and then say, "If you can think of some way, we will give you back the other £5, which neither you nor we want," that would be parallel to what they are now doing. They are deliberately taking something which they do not want, and, further, they are treating the holding company in a way in which they treat no other holder of electrical shares. There is no justification whatever for doing that, because, as my right hon. and gallant Friend said, under this Clause, they can get everything for which they have asked at any stage of the Bill, either in this House or in another place. The Parliamentary Secretary, if I may say so, flirted with this Amendment from time to time during the Committee stage.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): It was another girl.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Well, the hon. Gentleman certainly made good use of his half-holiday in making love to this one. It was only after he went and got further sustenance from the Minister that he came back refreshed in order to do further battle. I appeal to the Minister not to view this Amendment with prejudice, but to try to regard it from the point of view of what he is trying to achieve, which is simply to take over certain electricity undertakings in this country. As it is he is likely to take over a great many things with which he will not know what to do. I would like to ask him, as a matter of interest, what he proposes to do with a tramway in Athens which he will at the moment acquire. I do not think he will find it a very useful investment; in fact, I should think it would be rather a drag. What is he going to do with various properties in South America which he is going to acquire? He has given us no answer Therefore, for all these reasons, he should accept this Amendment which will give him everything he wants. It might involve slightly redrafting Clause 13, but a little more redrafting would not hurt The Government would get what they want, they would allow companies to continue using assets for which the Government have no use, and which the companies would use

to the benefit of the shareholders and the country as a whole.

Colonel Clarke: I would like to refer to the point which was made by the Solicitor-General who said that if a company had £100 or more or extraneous assets, it would be able to opt out of the Bill. I think he meant that the company would be able to opt out of Clause 13, and not out of the Bill, because it will continue to exist and hold its extraneous assets plus British electricity stock. In order to clarify my own mind I have imagined a sort of diagramatic picture of a holding company, and I have envisaged what would happen on the vesting day. I would like to emphasise the inequities which will occur. The ordinary company, of course, has a head office, with a board of directors and a secretariat; it has its holdings in extraneous assets—say 24 per cent.—and 76 per cent. in British companies. It also has a certain number of consulting engineers. Perhaps it has a laboratory and a research department. On the vesting day the company ceases to exist, the directors disappear, the assets are taken over by the Central Electricity Authority, and the staff is absorbed into that authority.
The following unfortunate results may occur. First, certain foreign countries may refuse to acknowledge the right of the British Government to hold assets in those countries. Secondly, as the Government will have already paid the English holders of those foreign securities, on British electricity stock the country will suffer a double loss. Again there might be a case in which one of the English companies was held by this holding company, the holding company owning half the ordinary shares. The remaining half will be owned, perhaps, by an investment trust company. The investment trust company would get a totally different compensation for what it held directly than for what it held through the holding company, because the Stock Exchange values of the two would be different. The Stock Exchange value of the holding company would probably be influenced by the fact that it holds foreign assets. There might be a considerable difference in the value of the compensation for ordinary stock of the same English company.
Under this Amendment that position would be avoided. In the first place, the


head office would remain in being. I do not expect sympathy for the directors, but, after all, they are only human. They would have a job to do, and the same thing would apply to the senior members of the staff who would probably not be required by the Central Electricity Authority. I suggest the State would be saved a good deal of trouble. They would take over the British companies; they would take over such of the staff as they require, and I believe the reason that the Minister wants to take over these holding companies is because he wants the staff of the holding companies. This is really like the press gangs of the old days. If the whole matter could be simplified in that way, I cannot see why the Minister cannot reconsider his non-acceptance of this Amendment.

Sir Arnold Gridley: I would like to intervene for a few moments before we have the Ministerial reply to the arguments which have been presented from this side of the House. I do not know what holding companies will be involved in this Clause; neither have I taken the trouble to investigate in what way they may be affected—whether advantageously or disadvantageously—but I would like to deal with the argument presented by the Solicitor-General. He referred to the case of a holding company which has, perhaps, only £100 in extraneous assets, and he proceeded to base his argument upon that case. I would like him to take the case of a holding company which has 24 per cent. of its investments in extraneous assets. If a holding company wishes to continue in existence after it has passed over to the State all its electricity subsidiaries, I have never yet understood—and I have never heard any argument presented from the other side of the House to show—what interest the Government can possibly have in whether that holding company continues in existence or not. On that question, the Government should give a considered answer if they have one.
We want the State to take over everything that it needs for the proper conduct of this industry in the future, but I do not understand why holding companies who are losing 76 per cent. of their assets to the State, and who have 24 per cent. in extraneous assets, should not continue in existence and leave their electricity stock as an investment. Probably, they

would expand much more rapidly with their 24 per cent. of investments in other undertakings. I cannot see why the Government will not say, "We do not care a button about the holding companies. Once we have got from them all that we need, if they like to go on in their wisdom or unwisdom, that is a matter entirely for them. It does not concern the Government." I think we ought to ask the Government why are they so keen to kill the holding companies when it is neither going to disadvantage them or benefit them if they are allowed to continue in existence.
4.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, when this was debated in Standing Committee upstairs, used as an argument that some of these holding companies are very valuable organisations, and that it might be of interest to the State to take them over to help to run the area undertakings. That point has been fully met. There, again, the Government are getting all that they ask for and that they need. It does seem to me that the Government may land themselves in difficulties if they do take over the holding companies with all their assets, and then have to get rid of the 24 per cent. which they do not want. The case has been quoted of a tramway undertaking in Athens. There may be other assets—there were at one time, and may be today for all I know—in Poland. We have Members on the other side thinking we ought to get out of Greece and let that country settle its own problems. What would happen in that case to all those assets? We do not know. I do not know how one is going to manage the assets in Poland today, having regard to the position of Poland under the thumb of another country. Surely, it would be wiser for the Government to do as we ask. If they are not going to do so, I hope we shall have sound reasons for their stubborn adherence to the position that they have taken up.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) asked about the companies whose extraneous assets are 24 per cent. The answer I would make is that, so far as I know, of the 11 companies at present within the scope of Clause 13, it would apply to none of them. So far as I know—I speak as the result of a certain amount


of research by those who advise me—in the case of none of these companies could it be said that there is anything like 24 per cent. of extraneous assets—in the case of each of them. In the case of two there are unnecessary assets—that is, the other category of the assets—in transport undertakings which will, presumably, in due course, be acquired by the State when the Transport Bill becomes law. With regard to the others, beyond saying that there is not a 24 per cent. extraneous assets percentage, I cannot give further information. One seems to have, as I said in my earlier remarks, something in the nature of shares in the investment of an estate company of some sort. Again, it is a comparatively small investment.
In answer to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, what I would say is this. There are two systems. There is Clause 13 with its system; and there is the new system embodied in the new Clause. There is not really a case for keeping both of them. One is a contradiction of the other. They do in the long run much the same thing. In both cases, both in the machinery of Clause 13 and in the machinery of the new Clause, the same result, or a very similar result, is achieved in the end: and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is a case for these two systems to co-exist. I ask the House to take the case of a holding company with extraneous assets. It can dispose of those assets, having obtained the approval of the Minister under Clause 29, before the vesting date. They can be disposed of by way of sale with the Minister's approval. Then, of course, no question arises of re-opening any pre-vesting day transaction. In the event of assets being acquired by an area board, the area board itself has the power to dispose of the assets under the general powers which it has under Clause 2. That would be post-vesting. So that either pre-vesting or post-vesting a holding company's assets can be transferred to another body.
The case made for the Clause really is that it is justified by its simplicity, but I would ask the House to say that if we have two co-existing systems we do not make for simplicity, but that, on the contrary, we make for a quite unnecessary complication. If the question of these extraneous assets were a major question,

that is to say, if there were a very large number of holding companies, prima facie, within the scope of Clause 13 and if the amount of their holdings were in each case something like 24 per cent., then one would be disposed to approach this proposal in an attempt to explore it much more fully. I make haste to say we do not approach it in any atmosphere of prejudice at all. I think the right hon. Gentleman rather complained that I showed some degree of hostility to it. I certainly did not mean to do so.
The burden of my argument was meant to be, that if one system is an adequate system, we do not need another. It really is—if one looks at the actual figures—a problem within a very small compass. The extent of these extraneous assets is not sufficient to justify, in the view we take, the proposals of the new Clause, which would be superimposed on Clause 13, and which, in the event, would nullify the provisions of Clause 13, and render it almost entirely useless, because each one of these companies would come in under the new system instead of coming in under the system embodied in the Bill. Therefore, I simply say that no case for the new Clause has been made out, and that no real advantage, indeed, no advantage of any sizeable character, is obtained by keeping the new Clause. It is for that reason, and not because we view it with any hostility, but because we see no reason for it, that we ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Pickthorn: I had not intended to intervene on this. I do not know if the learned Solicitor-General is the only Minister who is prepared, for one reason or another, to talk about this, and I would not wish to put on him the burden of speaking three times on it; but it did seem to me—if Ministers could bear to listen to me for two minutes—that really his argument will hardly do. His argument was that this is setting Up a second system and that, therefore, it is excessively complicated. That was the first part of his argument. The second part of his argument was that the number of companies affected—or affectable, rather—by the new Clause is small, and that the proportion of their assets is small. If, says he, there were far more holding companies and if there were far more of the holding companies which had 24 per cent. of extraneous and unnecessary


assets, then there would be a far stronger case for the new Clause. That seems to me completely to destroy the first part of his argument. If the argument against the new Clause is its complication, then this submission, that it would be worth considering if far more companies and far more assets would be affected, seems to me to break down.
His argument seems to me to break clown on this point also. The Solicitor-General says that it is two systems. But, surely, it is not? It is an attempt to apply the same system by different methods to two different entities. What we are trying to do is to make sure that in each case stockholders shall be treated the same. Why, because a stockholder is a company, should it be treated differently from stockholders who are individuals? Essentially, all these holding companies are holders of stock in electricity concerns. All other holders of stock in electricity concerns are to lose their stock in electricity concerns, but are not to lose any of their other investments. We are asking that the same should apply to this class of holders of electricity stock. Thus, we are not asking for a different system, but that the same system should be applied, or, if the Solicitor-General likes, that the same principle should be applied but by different techniques, because the parties to whom it is necessary to apply them are themselves different and, therefore, demand different techniques. I submit that those two arguments really do destroy the case put up by the Solicitor-General, and I think it is due to the House that we should have a better case put up by one of the other Ministers in charge of this Bill.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: This argument is really much ado about nothing, because in Standing Committee the Parliamentary Secretary agreed to have a look at this and to consider it. The argument this afternoon turns on the amount of extraneous assets a holding company may possess, and on the one side we have had the illustration that they can be 24 per cent., or any amount. The Solicitor-General resists the Amendment because he thinks the extraneous assets may be little, or very small. That is purely hypothetical, dealing only with the amount of extraneous assets, leaving the principle of the argument entirely

untouched. The Parliamentary Secretary admitted that there was a principle worth looking at. Why not give effect to the principle? Because the Government are now saying that a holding company would be wound up, but if it has extraneous assets when it is wound up the company can be re-formed in order to deal with the extraneous assets. Why should it be re-formed? The much simpler thing would be, that the company should be allowed to remain in being and deal with the extraneous assets, and for the Government to deal with them under the provisions of the Bill. Why all this ado about nothing? It would be much simpler merely to accept the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: With the leave of the House, I wish to speak again for only a few minutes, for I do not wish to delay the proceedings. It is clear that, for some reason or other, we have not succeeded in reaching agreement on this point. I am in strong agreement with the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) and the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) in regard to the principle of the thing, that it is unnecessary to smash up a going piece of machinery merely to extract from it a piece of scrap. It would be much simpler—as could be done under the Amendment—to unscrew the part it is desired to take away and to leave the going machinery.

Mr. Shinwell: What will be done with the scrap?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: There is no scrap. If the part it is desired to take away is unscrewed and the going part is left by itself, then there is no scrap. I see the Minister's point, but he does not grasp our contention that by this technique there would not be any scrap. By his method there would be scrap; the holding company is destroyed, and there is salvage, scrap. In our contention the parts which are, in fact, detachable are unscrewed, and each part then goes on by itself. I cannot for the life of me see why the Minister continues to resist the Amendment. However, I am sure we will not do any good by arguing further about it, and I do not propose to continue the argument. But I leave it on record that this afternoon we put before the Minister the simple suggestion that when there is a


machine composed of two detachable parts, each viable by itself, the two pieces should be allowed to work, but that the Minister said: "No. I prefer to shatter it to bits, and then to remould the pieces nearer to my own heart's desire,"—to adapt some words from the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, who was given to wine, woman and song. I do not suppose that any of those inducements has brought the Minister to his present contention, but I should be happier in my mind if it were so, because, apart from that, he seems to have acted on some process of ratiocina

tion which I have so far failed to understand, and I do not like to feel that a clever, intelligent, hard-working man is proceeding upon some process of reasoning to which I myself cannot in any way get a clue. That is what disquiets me about the whole of our short Debate upon this. Therefore, the sooner we dismiss it and pass to the blunt argument of the Division Lobby the better.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House Divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 103.

Division No. 366.]
AYES.
[4.46 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Adams, W. T (Hammersmith, South)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Leonard, W.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Leslie, J. R


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lever, N. H.


Alpass, J. H.
Ewart, R.
Levy, B. W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Fairhurst, F.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Attewell, H. C.
Farthing, W J.
Lewis, J (Bolton)


Austin, H. Lewis
Fernyhough, E.
Lipson, D. L.


Awbery, S. S
Follick, M
Logan, D. G


Ayles, W. H.
Foot, M. M.
Longden, F


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Lyne, A. W.


Balfour, A.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McAdam, W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
McEntee, V La T.


Barstow, P. G.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
McGhee, H G


Barton, C.
Gallacher, W.
McGovern, J.


Battley, J. R.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Bechervaise, A. E
Gibbins, J.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Belcher, J. W
Gilzean, A.
McLeavy, F.


Berry, H
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Bing, G. H. G.
Goodrich, H. E.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Blackburn, A. R.
Greenwood, A W J (Heywood)
Mainwaring, W. H


Bowden, Flg.-Offr H W
Grenfell, D. R.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)
Grey, C. F
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Grierson, E.
Marshall, F (Brightside)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mathers, G


Bramall, E. A.
Griffiths, W D (Moss Side)
Medland, H M


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gunter, R. J.
Messer, F


Brocks, T. J (Rothwell)
Guy, W. H.
Middleton, Mrs. L


Brown, George (Belper)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mikardo, Ian


Brown. T J (Ince)
Hale, Leslie
Mitchison, G. R.


Buchanan, G.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Monslow, W


Burden, T W
Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.
Moody, A. S.


Carmichael, James
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Morgan, Dr. H. B


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Morris, P (Swansea, W.)


Chater, D.
Harrison, J.
Morrison, Rt Hon H (L'wish'm, E.)


Chetwynd, G R.
Henderson. Joseph (Ardwick)
Mort, D L


Cluse, W S
Herbison, Miss M
Moyle, A


Cobb, F. A
Hicks, G
Nally, W.


Cocks, F S
Holman, P
Naylor, T E


Coldrick, W.
House, G.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Collindridge, F
Hoy, J.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Colman, Miss G M
Hubbard, T.
Oldfield, W. H


Cook, T F
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Orbach, M.


Corbel, Mrs F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)
Paget, R. T


Corlett, Dr. J
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Cove, W G
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Crawley, A.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Parker, J.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jay, D. P. T
Parkin, B. T.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Davies. R J. (Westboughton)
Jeger, Dr. S W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Peart, Thomas F.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Piratin, P.


Deer, G.
Keenan, W
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Diamond, J.
Kenyon, C
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Dobbie, W.
Key, C. W
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Dodds, N N
King, E. M
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Donovan, T.
Kinley, J.
Price, M. Philips


Driberg, T E. N
Kirby, B. V.
Pritt, D. N.


Dugdale, J (W Bromwich)
Kirkwood, D
Pryde, D. J


Dye, S.
Lavers, S.
Ranger, J


Edelman, M
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J
Rankin, J




Rees-Williams, D. R.
Snow, Capt. J W
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Reeves, J.
Solley, L. J.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Rhodes, H.
Sparks, J. A
Wells, W T (Walsall)


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Stamford, W
West, D. G.


Robens, A.
Stephen, C.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Strauss, G R. (Lambeth, N.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Rogers, G. H. R.
Stross, Dr. B.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Stubbs, A. E.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Royle, C.
Summerskill, Dr Edith
Wilkes, L.


Sargood, R.
Swingler, S.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Scollan, T.
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Scott-Elliot, W
Symonds, A. L.
Williams, J L. (Kelvingrove)


Segal, Dr. S.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Willis, E.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Sharp, Granville
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wilson, J. H


Shawcross, C. N, (Widnes)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Wise, Major F J


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Woodburn, A


Shinwell Rt Hon E
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Woods, G. S.


Shurmer, P.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wyat, W.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thurtle, Ernest
Yates, V. F.


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Tiffany, S.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Simmons, C. J.
Titterington, M. [...]
Younger Hon Kenneth


Skeffington, A. M.
Tolley, L.
Zilliacus, K


Skeffington-Lodge, T C.
Usborne, Henry



Skinnard, F. W.
Vernon, Maj. W.&lt;ob/&gt;
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Viant, S. P
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Popplewell.


Smith, S. H. (Hull S. W.)
Wallace, G D (Chislehurst)





NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Grimston, R. V.
Nield, B. (Chester)


Baldwin, A. E.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Noble, Comdr A H. P


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Pickthorn, K.


Bennett, Sir P
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ponsonby, Col. C. E


Birch, Nigel
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Prescott, Stanley


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hurd, A.
Ramsay, Major S.


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Col. J. R (Glasgow, C.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S C. (Hillhead)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Kendall, W. D.
Roberts, Maj P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Kerr Sir J. Graham
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Langford-Holt, J.
Savory, Prof. D. L


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Law, Rt Hon. R. K
Scott, Lord W


Byers, Frank
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Challen, C
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smith. E P (Ashford)


Clarke, Col R. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Smithers, Sir W.


Clifton-Brown, Lt -Col. G
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cole, T. L.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Low, Brig. A. R. W
Strauss, H G. (English Universities)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Crowder, Capt John E.
McCallum, Maj. D
Sutcliffe, H


Cuthbert, W. N.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Taylor, Vice-Adm E A. (P'dd'ton. S.)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Touche, G. C.


Davidson, Viscountess
Maclay, Hon. J. S
Vane, W. M. F


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Walker-Smith, D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dower, Lt.-Col A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
While, Sir D. (Fareham)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marlowe, A. A. H
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Duthie, W. S.
Marples, A. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Eden, Rt. Hon. A
Marsden, Capt. A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
York, C.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P M
Marshall, S. H (Sutton)



Galbraith, Cmdr T. D.
Molson, A. H. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glyn Sir R.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Commander Agnew and


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Major Conant.


Gridley, Sir A.
Nicholson, G



Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 17.—(Composite Companies).

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 27, line 13, after "Minister" insert:
and any question whether any property is or was (for the purposes of the said subsection (2) as so applied) held or used partly in the said capacity and partly in other capacities shall, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration under this Act, and the last foregoing section shall also apply to a composite company in like manner as it applies to a local authority.

Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 13, after the Amendment last inserted, to insert:
(5) No part of the cash and investments of a composite company shall vest in an Electricity Board under Section fourteen of this Act, and the last two foregoing subsections shall accordingly not apply thereto, but regulations shall, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to the final payment of dividends and interest, provide for the apportionment as between the Board and the


company, of the whole of the cash and investments of the company, together with any income accruing thereon pending such apportionment, in such shares as may be agreed between them or, in default of such agreement, determined in accordance with the regulations.
Any references in the following provisions of this Act to property which vests by virtue of this Act shall include a reference to property apportioned to an Electricity Board under this sub-section.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As I understand it, the purpose of this Amendment is to try to speed up payments to composite companies. It lays down, in the first place, that no part of the cash and investments of a composite company shall automatically vest in an electricity board. Secondly, that the net revenue for the final period shall be ascertained, the final dividend paid, and then the regulations shall provide for the apportionment as between the board and the company of the remainder of the cash and investments of the company, together with any income accruing. I should like to ask what form these regulations will take, and what they are designed to do. As far as I know, at no stage on this Bill have we had a statement in regard to the form of these Regulations, or their purpose.

Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) is quite right in what he said about the purpose of the Amendment. It is really more a matter of clarification than anything else. We intend that the cash and investments of composite undertakings shall be separated, and shall not be vested but apportioned between the board which is taking over the electricity part of the company and the undertaking which is continuing. There will also be apportionment in similar fashion in regard to any part of the revenues which remain after meeting the final payment of dividend, as permitted under the Bill. I do not think there is much I can say at this stage on the question of regulations. It is to be hoped that there will be agreement in this matter, but it may be necessary to lay down certain principles according to which apportionment should be made; some specific reference to arbitration might even be included. I am

afraid that at this stage I cannot say any more than that.

Lords Amendment: In page 79, line 24, at end insert:

NEW CLAUSE C.—(Assets of Electricity Associations to be applicable for compensating their officers.)

Where any body, not being a body to whom Part II of this Act applies, have among their objects the promotion or protection of the interests of electricity undertakers or any class thereof, or of the officers of electricity undertakers or any class thereof, and, by reason of the failure of the objects of the body in consequence of the provisions of this Act, the affairs of the body are being wound up, any assets of the body which, after satisfaction of all their debts and liabilities, remain undisposed of may, notwithstanding anything in any enactment or instrument defining the objects of the body or regulating their affairs, be applied in whole or in part in compensating the officers of the body."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

5.0 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: This Amendment enables the Minister to make regulations with regard to local enactments that will be retrospective. Could the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that any such regulation will contain an indemnity, so that anything done under a local enactment which was not one of these retrospective regulations would not be the subject of litigation?

The Solicitor-General: It would be premature to give any undertaking in general terms. I am certain that my right hon. Friend, in making regulations under the powers vested in him will do his best to treat all persons fairly. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member will realise that he cannot ask me now, looking over the wide purview of all possible regulations, to give such an undertaking. They will be operated fairly in all circumstances.

Mr. Charles Williams: We shall have these regulations coming on in due course, and I should have thought that now we are accepting these Amendments it might be in the general interest if we could have some idea of the lines which the Minister's mind is pursuing in this matter. It may be a little difficult for him to say very much, but I should have thought that he could have helped


us in relation to the kind of policy he has in mind in connection with these regulations.

The Solicitor-General: With the permission of the House, may I tell the hon. Member that it is almost impossible to answer his question, because this Clause deals with modifications and adaptations? There will be a wide range of modifications and adaptations, and the Clause means that where there is a local enactment which does not fit the wording is altered so that its meaning can be extended to accommodate it to the new state of affairs.

Mr. Williams: Am I to understand that it is intended to deal only with small, and not with big, matters?

The Solicitor-General: It is to deal with modifications.

Lords Amendment: In page 79, line 25, at end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE D.—(Setting up of Electricity Appeal Tribunal.)

(1) Forthwith upon the dissolution of the Electricity Commissioners the Minister shall by order constitute a tribunal (in this Act referred to as the Electricity Appeal Tribunal) which shall consist of a chairman who shall be a barrister or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing appointed by the Lord Chancellor and two other members appointed by the Minister, one of whom shall be a person having experience in the generation and supply of electricity and the other of whom shall have had experience in commercial matters.

No member of the Central Authority or, of any Area Board and no person employed by them shall be qualified to be a member of the Tribunal.

(2) It shall be the duty of each Area Board to submit to the Electricity Appeal Tribunal the tariffs from time to time fixed by them and the Tribunal after such enquiry as they think fit may either refuse to confirm any tariff or may confirm it with such alterations if any as they think fit and no such tariff shall come into force until it has been confirmed by the Tribunal.

(3) It shall be the duty of the Electricity Appeal Tribunal to consider—

(a) any representation from—

(i) any local authority having jurisdiction in the area of any Area Board;
(ii) such number of consumers not being less than twenty as the Tribunal think sufficient having regard to the population of the area;
(iii) any consumers who in the opinion of the Tribunal sufficiently represent any particular trade business or interest in the area

with respect to the prices charged for the supply of electricity by the Central Authority or any Area Board;

(b) any representation in regard to the matters specified in the preceding paragraph which may be made to the Electricity Appeal Tribunal by a Consultative Council either upon the request of any person or otherwise;
(c) any question which may be referred to it for consideration by the Minister or by the Central Authority.

When the Electricity Appeal Tribunal have considered any such representation of question as aforesaid they shall report to the Minister upon their conclusions and shall make such representations to the Minister in connection with those conclusions as they think expedient.

(4) Any order made under this Section may contain such incidental and consequential provisions for the payment of remuneration to members of the Tribunal by the Central Authority with the approval of the Treasury either by way of annual salary or of fees, and for determining the procedure of the Tribunal as the Minister thinks fit.

The procedure of the Tribunal shall be such as to secure that a member of the Tribunal shall not have any special interest such as may tend to interfere with his impartial consideration of the representation or question made or referred to them.

(5) The Tribunal shall be furnished by the Central Authority with such accommodation as appears to them to be requisite for the proper discharge of their functions and with such clerks, officers and staff as appear to them with the approval of the Treasury, as to numbers to be requisite for the purpose and the Central Authority shall pay to the clerks, officers and staff of the Tribunal such remuneration as they may, with the approval of the Treasury determine.

(6) The Minister and every Electricity Board shall provide the Tribunal with such information and other assistance as the Tribunal think expedient for the purpose of assisting them to discharge their functions.

(7) The Tribunal shall make an annual report to the Minister of their proceedings and the Minister shall lay the report before each House of Parliament together with a statement of any action which has been taken by him in consequence of any recommendation made to him by the Tribunal during the period to which the report relates.

(8) Until such time as an Order is made under this Section the powers and duties conferred and imposed by this Section upon the Electricity Appeal Tribunal upon its constitution shall by virtue of this provision be exercised and discharged by the Electricity Commissioners."

Mr. Shin well: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I want to say at once that with the principle embodied in this Amendment from another place I am in full sympathy. As Members who were associated with me


on the Standing Committee will recall, I was consumed with anxiety throughout the proceedings, about adequate safeguards for electricity consumers in respect of tariffs. I have sought all along to promote the most adequate provisions so that electricity consumers should be protected against inflated charges. Therefore, the anxiety which has been displayed by another place on this matter is shared by me.
While it is quite impossible for me to accept the form of the proposed Amendment, I have been considering whether it would be possible to devise an expedient to enable me to respond to the request which has been made. But I am in some difficulty; I am anxious not to impair the arrangements that are provided for in the Bill under Clause 7, in relation to the consultative councils. It is my view, which is shared by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, that the presence of a consultative council, charged with the duty of protecting the interests of the consumers, would be sufficient for the purpose. Moreover, the chairman of a consultative council is ipso facto a member of the area board and, therefore, there is direct access and effective liaison. Over and above that, the consultative council can, if it so desires, in the event of disagreement with the area board, make a submission to the Central Authority and, if the disagreement continues, can make representations to the Minister, who is the final court of appeal in this matter. The Minister, be it noted, takes upon himself the functions hitherto possessed by the Electricity Commissioners who, until the Bill becomes an Act, and until the Electricity Commissioners are abolished, are charged with the responsibility of advising the Minister, if necessary, on matters of this sort.
As I say, I was of the opinion that the Consultative Councils were adequate for the purpose, but it may be that some other device is necessary. I have considered whether something could be embodied in the Bill, even at this late stage, and I wonder whether it would not be possible—I am rather thinking aloud on the subject because this has caught us up in a somewhat belated fashion—for the Minister, within the powers vested in him,

to possess himself of some independent body of experts—persons who may be regarded as exercising adequate knowledge of electricity and electricity supply and the needs of the consumer; not a consultative council, of course, but an independent body. Their knowledge and wisdom and discretion might be made use of in the event of some disagreement between the consultative council, the area board and the Central Authority to make submissions to the Minister. Rather than that the Minister should decide arbitrarily whether a tariff was desirable or not, he could seize himself of the wisdom that resides in an independent body of the kind that I have indicated. It may be possible by the creation of an ad hoc body of that kind to make it unnecessary to accept this Amendment or to embody in the Bill any other provision.
If it will satisfy hon. Members, I will do this: I will, in the course of today or perhaps tomorrow, before the Bill reaches another place in its final form, look at the matter again. If I can find a form of convenient words which will conform to the principle which is embodied in this Amendment, and which meets my own point of view, which I have expressed very frequently in this regard, then I shall insert that form of words even at this late stage, although it is inconvenient to do so; but if I should not find it possible to find a convenient form of words, I shall have to ask hon. Members to reject this Amendment which has come from another place, and allow me, as Minister, at a later stage, in the event of disagreement emerging as between the consultative council and the area board and the Central Authority to create a kind of independent body, not necessarily a tribunal, but of a more advisory character, so that I should not be the only person to decide a matter affecting tariff rates.
I have tried to express myself as clearly as possible. It has been rather a strain upon me at this late stage, and I must confess to being a little embarrassed by the situation—not very much embarrassed, just a little, as, no doubt, hon. Members can see. But I am anxious to meet the views expressed because they conform with the view that I have indicated so frequently on Standing Committee and in the House in the course of our Debates. If hon. Members will agree to that, I repeat that I will try to get a form of words,


but if I fail I shall see that the principle which we now have under review is "incorporated into the administration"—I have got it at last. I hope that assurance will be regarded as satisfactory.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. It is a little difficult to follow, as we have not seen it on the paper, but, as I understand it, under the Bill as it stands, on page 12, in subsection (8) of Clause 7 to which the right hon. Gentleman refers:
A Consultative Council may, after consultation with the Central Authority, make representations to the Minister on any matters arising out of representations made by them to the Central Authority …
As I understand the Minister, what he has in mind is to see whether he can set up in his Ministry some body of expert people to whom these representations would be made in the first instance, and who would, so to speak—I will not say in an arbitrary way—be able to advise the Minister after having heard the two sides, so that it would not be actually the Minister's own civil servants or the Minister himself making a decison. I think that the Minister has gone a long way, and, it seems, at first sight, to be a useful way out. I would not have thought that it would have been too difficult for the draftsman to find the necessary form of words to be inserted in the Bill, but, at any rate, if they cannot, we take note of the Minister's promise to set up some such piece of machinery as he has suggested. I presume that he is prepared to do that.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There are two points which I wish the right hon. Gentleman would clear up, arising out of his very conciliatory remarks. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Clause which was inserted in another place imposes on the Electricity Appeal Tribunal two rather different functions. It imposes the function of approving tariff rates as submitted by an area board, and reporting upon complaints of a certain character. Is the proposal which the Minister has just made to the House designed to deal with both of those matters? Does he propose to deal in this way, not only with the complaints, but with the fixing of tariffs by the area board?

Mr. Shinwell: indicated assent.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I note that the right hon. Gentleman indicates assent, and I am grateful to him for that. My second point is this: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to put some such provision in the Bill, and not deal with this administratively, for this reason: If the provision is in the Bill, it will be quite clear that it is the tribunal which is responsible for its decisions and not the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman deals with it administratively, then, it seems to me, whether he likes it or not, and whether the House likes it or not, he will be responsible to the House for the decisions given by the tribunal, because they will be simply his agents, exercising his powers, which he himself has delegated. The right hon. Gentleman knows well that in another connection there has been a good deal of discussion in this House as to what is his responsibility and what is the responsibility of other bodies. Unless he can put into the Bill a provision which will make it quite clear that Parliament has delegated the responsibility to an outside tribunal, or whatever body it is, his alternative method of dealing with this administratively will not get over that difficulty because he will be answerable to the House for the decisions of what he properly desires to be an independent body. It is with a desire to be helpful on that point that I put this consideration to the House.

Major Peter Roberts: I am afraid that I have to strike a rather discordant note, mainly on the point that whereas the Minister is satisfied that the consultative councils will be a reality, I am not now, and have not been in the past, inclined so to believe. Although the Minister is apparently putting a good deal of reliance on these bodies, I cannot help feeling that in fact they will prove not to be the assistance to him or to the consumers which he thinks. It is on that fundamental belief that I wish to put certain considerations to the Minister in the hope that, as far as possible, he may make this body which he has in mind an independent one.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was satisfied that the safeguarding of the consumers was adequate under the Bill. I want to put in a word here from the


point of view of the locality of Sheffield, which I represent, and other localities, particularly with regard to local authorities so far as consumers are concerned. The Minister knows that various local authorities have their own undertakings and that some of them also have their own particular means for dealing with electrical furnaces and so on. What will be the power of the consumer now as far as the consultative councils are concerned? In the Yorkshire area there are to be up to 30 representatives of whom 18 will represent local authorities, and, as I understand it, only one will come from Sheffield. This is vitally important because if the Minister is to rely on the consultative councils I do not think that one local representative from Sheffield will be sufficient.
By way of analogy I would remind the Minister that, as he knows, the consultative councils in the coal industry were not set up for the first six months, and in fact they are not even working now after seven months. The first point is how long is it to be before these consultative councils are set up. I think it is most necessary to have some form of tribunal, but I cannot see why the suggestion contained in the Amendment would not do. With regard to the question of independence, whatever body is established it will be of no vise at all from the point of view of the consumer if it is set up by the Minister within the framework of his Department. If there is to be real benefit for the consumers it is essential that they should be able to go to an independent tribunal.

Mr. Palmer: I cannot follow this point. Since the Amendment is not being pressed, I do not want to come back to it to too great an extent, but under the proposal as put forward by the Opposition the tribunal is still responsible to the Minister. The actual words are:
When the Electricity Appeal Tribunal have considered any such representation or question as aforesaid they shall report to the Minister upon their conclusions …
In view of this it seems to me that the Amendment is not in line with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's reasoning.

Major Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will see in Subsection (2) of the proposed Clause that on price-fixing the tribunal is entirely independent. Whatever the

Minister says in regard to price-fixing the tribunal has the last word. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made that point when he was discussing the two distinct functions, and it is the question of the independence of this body which I want to emphasise. We have had an assurance from the Minister which goes some way in this matter, but if he is to rely on these consultative councils and on a tribunal set up by him which merely advises him as to prices, I am not at all certain that this will satisfy the consumers of the area from which I come, Sheffield, or other consumers of that kind. Until we see some alternative I am not prepared to admit that there is any reason why the Minister could not accept the Amendment as it now stands. The speech which the right hon. Gentleman made was virtually in support of the Amendment. He said that the matter had "caught up on him" and that may be so because he has other things to do and had not perhaps applied himself to it by the time the forms were produced. If he had applied himself to it I believe that he would have found that what he is seeking—and what he said at the end of his speech he had found—is down here in black and white. With that caveat, I put it most sincerely to the Minister that he should see that this tribunal is independent and not merely a creature of his Department.

Colonel Clarke: I am glad that the Minister is reconsidering this matter because I have never been satisfied that the consultative councils were the right answer, as I said in the opening sentences of my Second Reading speech. I am not at all sure that the Minister has been satisfied either. In Committee he once said that the consultative councils were a very good form of liaison with the consumer—"Contact between the consumer and the authority responsible for distribution" were his actual words. I agree this accurately and comprehensively defines what they will be.
Now there are one or two suggestions which I should like to make. There are two weaknesses I see in the consultative councils under Clause 7, the first of which is that I think there should be some form of published report. It is true that they may send forward reports which might eventually accompany the reports of the


Minister and of the central and area boards and reach this House, but this provision is permissive whereas in the tribunal we suggest it would be compulsory for them to report once a year. I believe that it would very much strengthen the position if reports had to be submitted annually in this way. Although the chairman of the consultative council may be also on the area board, unless he is a man of very great character there might be a dangerous tendency for him to be told, "It is not in the interests of the service on the whole that you should send this report forward. You had better think about it again." My other suggestion is that whatever organisation the Minister sets up should be at a level equal to that of the central board. The consultative councils are not on that level and cannot talk to the central board about the prices to be charged by that board. They may discuss area board prices but not those of the central board, and I feel that we need something at a rather higher level.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I have listened to the Minister with very great care, and I was, of course, rather drawn in my outlook towards him when he informed us in such a fatherly way at the beginning of his remarks, that as his Bill went forward, he began to take a rather more kindly interest in the consumer. It was a new move on the Minister's part, and it naturally drew me a little closer to him. I am in a very interesting position on this Amendment, because we have here an Amendment, which, no doubt, does good to the consumers in my constituency, and, indeed, to those all over the country. As I understand it, from what the Minister said, if we are to accept this Amendment a great deal more power to get in contact with the Minister and to place arguments before him, will be provided. I would also say that, there is a definite point to be considered as far as the local authorities are concerned. If I might have the attention of the Minister, I also should like to emphasise what has been emphasised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Major Roberts) about the local authorities. There is some concern on this matter of consultation with the Minister by local authorities, and that concern is not confined to my constituency but applies all

over the country. From that point of view, I feel I am bound to point out that if this Amendment is not accepted I very much doubt in the first place whether the consumers will be pleased, and, in the second place, whether the local authorities, especially in the Western area, will be satisfied. That is why I would like to vote to have this excellent Amendment in the Bill.
Let us look at the Minister's proposition. He used a curious phrase—that he has only just "caught up" with the idea of this Amendment. He admitted quite frankly that he was thinking aloud. In other words, in this Amendment, which no doubt is a very good one, and which was only passed after being carefully thought out and discussed in another place, the Minister is only catching up with what it means. It is an Amendment that I should have thought should undoubtedly have been in the original Bill. I am in the' position that unless I support the Lords in this Amendment I shall catch it from my constituency and from the whole of the local authorities, and I shall be blamed for supporting a Minister who admitted in his own speech he had really not thought out what the Amendment meant. That is the position in which I find myself.
Then the Minister says, "Oh yes, I will put up some sort of an advisory body which will consult with me and which I can send round to and get advice from." I notice that the Minister does not like me to draw attention to this matter, and I did not expect that he would, not for a minute. But what actually happens? He said he will try to have some such body and that we have got to trust him. If I went to a meeting in my division and said that I accepted the Minister's assurance because he was a nice person on whom I could rely, the people would shout an awful lot of the nasty things at me which generally they say about him. I believe the Minister when he said that he would do nothing very quickly and that he would like to look at this matter. But it is possible for this Government to do even more stupid things, than they have done in the past, and that is a matter which I wish to emphasise in my desire to have this Amendment in the Bill. I have not yet heard any reason why it should be kept out. It is a good Amendment, and if it is not put in the Bill it will weaken the position of the consumer.
Once again, we are being asked to allow the Minister to do what he says he will do and have this advisory body set up some time at his discretion. We are asked to give powers under which he and he alone can decide the matter and Parliament will have absolutely nothing to do with the set-up of this body. That is going on in Bill after Bill, and I say quite frankly, without any desire to quarrel with the Minister or to interfere with his new advance towards the consumer, because in that I desire to encourage him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that, at last, from hon. Members opposite I am getting encouragement in urging the Minister to do something for the consumer. At any rate, I have gained something as far as the rag-tag and bobtail of the Socialists are concerned. I notice that I have not got the Communist Party with me, but they care even less for the consumer than the ordinary Socialist back bencher.
The support which I have received from hon. Members opposite bears out how very right I am in saying that I would like this Amendment in the Bill, because it would safeguard the consumers, and I do not think that any Minister in any circumstances ought to be trusted with the type of powers which the right hon. Gentleman asks for. It is completely and absolutely wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that on that point I have gained converts from hon. Members opposite in the very short time that I have been speaking. I should like to add that I am not going to spend my time going round my constituents and supporting the Minister. I really am not such a mug as that. I have no intention of supporting him in his wish to be able to grind down the face of my constituents to defy the local authority and to give bad and short supplies in the same manner as his incompetence has led to the same thing in other directions, as with coal.

Mr. Shinwell: No one knows better than the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) how gladly I would avail myself of the opportunity of replying to him. In spite of his persuasive appeal, I must ask the House, as I have already done, to reject the Amendment. I am extremely sorry that I should disappoint the hon. Member, but, no doubt, he will

convey his disappointment to his disappointed constituents. There is litttle more I require to say. I have already given an assurance to the House that I will look at the form of words and see if something convenient can be found and, if not, we must do this thing administratively.
My principal reason in rising to address the House is to confute quite definitely the suggestion that the consultative councils will be mere facades. They will be nothing of the sort, and, indeed, I would direct attention to what is an inescapable fact, that if we do accept the Amendment in this form of words it would completely emasculate the consultative councils, because they would have no authority or prestige whatever. It would be obvious that instead of sitting and consulting with each other on complaints which are made by consumers in respect of tariffs and the like, they would immediately refer these matters to an area board and then disagree with the area board in any circumstances, so that they might make their submission to the central authority and the Minister, well knowing that the matter originally raised, would go before an independent tribunal. That, I say, would impair the prestige of the consultative councils. We intend to make the councils worth while, so that they may adequately perform the service for which they were created.

Major P. Roberts: I would like to point out that the right hon. Gentleman said the same thing about the consumers' councils for coal, but they have not yet started to function. Have we any guarantee that the consultative councils will be set up by 1st April?

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot give a firm commitment as to the specific date by which the consultative councils will be appointed, but it will certainly be done as soon as possible. Naturally, I have to consult a great many organisations of a representative character. Indeed, I have pointed out to the hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall (Major Roberts), who mentioned a point about local authorities' anxiety to protect the interests of the consumer, that I have to consult many local authorities who would be represented on the consultative councils. That itself will be a safeguard for the consumer.
I would like to make it plain that we cannot expect that every trifling complaint that comes before a consultative council and upon which there may be disagreement with an area board or even the central authority, can be adjudicated upon by an independent tribunal. That would make life unbearable for the tribunal and intolerable for the Minister, who must depend for guidance upon the tribunal, whether he accepts its decision or not. Indeed, one would hardly expect that every kind of tariff revision, however minor in character, should come before an independent body, whether of an advisory character or of an arbitrary character. I wish to make that point plain.
Finally, I would put this point to hon. Members. Whether they like the provisions of the Bill or not, it has been agreed after protracted discussion that the central authority, the British Electricity Authority, must pay its way taking one year with another. Clearly, if that obligation is imposed on the Central Authority it is impossible to leave the matter to some other body to determine specifically what tariff rates should be imposed. It would make the position of the Central Authority impossible. Taking all those factors into account,. it appears to me that we must try to effect a reasonable and sensible compromise, bearing in mind that it is the desire of everyone here and in the country to protect with the most effective and adequate safeguards, the interests of the consumer. That is our desire.
Let us try to seek a reasonable compromise. That is what I am endeavouring to do. When the hon. Member for Torquay gibed at me because I said that I had just caught up with an idea, I did not mean the idea of protecting the interests of the consumer. That has been stated over and over again in our Debates. I meant the idea of finding a

sensible compromise between the Amendment on the Paper and the other propositions that have been made to me.

Mr. C. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman has very courteously given way to me. When he said that he had only just caught up with the idea, I never, thought he meant the idea of protecting the interests of the consumer. I thought he meant the idea that the Amendment made the Bill much fairer than it was before. I thought the right hon. Gentleman meant that he was gradually catching up with the idea that it was more just to put the Amendment in.

Mr. Shinwell: That was the interpretation of the hon. Gentleman. It did not happen to be mine and it was not in my mind. I fully appreciate the desire of everybody to respond to the views I have expressed about seeking a reasonable compromise. In the light of that desire, and in the circumstances, I will do the very best I can to respond in my turn. I may fail in securing the precise form of words but I give again the assurance that if that should happen I shall administratively, and as rapidly as possible, try to secure some device to conform as nearly as possible to the principle embodied in the Amendment.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to [Several with Special Entries].

Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Colonel Clarke, Commander Galbraith, Mr. Messer, Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Shinwell. Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Shinwell.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

5.49 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
It might be for the convenience of the House if I made a statement on the Amendments proposed from another place. All told, there are 157 of them, but only about 12 involve any change of substance, and only in regard to three of them do we find ourselves in major disagreement. It will be necessary for us to move that we disagree with the Lords in respect of those three Amendments. One of the three deals with "dead ripe" land, the second with an independent tribunal, and the third with minerals. On the question of the other Amendments, it would be my purpose if either side of the House wishes to raise any points, to explain the changes and to give the House a fair explanation. I trust that with that explanation the House can now accept the Motion.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We certainly agree not only with the Motion but that the same procedure which has been of convenience to the House in the case of the Bill just passed, should be followed for this Measure. This side of the House would desire not to waste time on the consideration of those Amendments which are to be agreed, in order to reserve time for the discussion for the three points of substance which, as the Joint Under-Secretary has said, still remain to be discussed and decided. There is no doubt that the Bill is improved as the result of the consideration in another place. Many of the Amendments which have been inserted were discussed here. On some the Minister saw his way to give a pledge but on some he did not; but the result of the consideration has been to the advantage of the Measure and, therefore, to the advantage of the people of Scotland. There is every reason for us to proceed now, and I do not think the proceedings should be unduly protracted.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 21.—(Enforcement of planning control.)

Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 44, at end, insert:
within two years after it has come to their knowledge that such development has been so carried out or that such conditions have not been complied with.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I merely want to say that I regret that the Government have not been able to accept a period of less than two years after the matter comes to their notice. So far as I am aware, this is the longest period that has ever been put in an Act of Parliament with regard to the time in which Government authorities ought to make up their minds whether or not to take proceedings. Six months is common. A year has been known in certain cases, but even in complicated matters like insurance, it is either six months or a year. Here two years will be taken to make up their minds whether to do anything. The Bill is better than it was originally, but one ought to draw attention to the fact that the Government machine is now being so overloaded that they find it necessary to have two years in which to make up their mind about something.

CLAUSE 49.—(Temporary provisions for eliminating special value attributable to vacant possession.)

Lords Amendment: In page 60, line 6, after "gardens," insert:
any garden exceeding one-quarter acre occupied together with a house and used mainly or wholly as an allotment garden.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: As I raised this point during our all-night sitting, I should like to express appreciation of the fact that an Amendment has been put in to meet the point I raised. I am not very happy about the phrase, "allotment garden," but I realise the drafting difficulty and I hope that it will work out all right.

Mr. Buchanan: This matter gave me some concern because on the Scottish Grand Committee the right hon. and


learned Gentleman took exception to the phrase relating to the labouring classes. We replied promptly on the Report stage by deleting any reference. The right hon. and learned Gentleman then thought we were going too far. I think this is as near a definition as we can get with fairness. At least, it has the merit that it takes the definition away from the individual and places it on the land. In the circumstances I think we have done our best to meet him on the point.

CLAUSE 66.—(Determination of development charge by Central Land Board.)

Lords Amendment: In page 78, line 14, at end insert:
(5) Any person aggrieved by any assessment or determination of the amount of a development charge may appeal to a Tribunal consisting of a member or members of the panel constituted under Part I of the Schedule to the War Damage (Valuation Appeals) Act, 1945, selected in accordance with the provisions of Part II of that Schedule, and the provisions of Part III of that Schedule shall in so far as they relate to appeals to a Tribunal have effect in relation to appeals under this Act as if for any reference to the War Damage Commission there were substituted a reference to the Central Land Board and as if for any reference to the War Damage Act, 1943, there were substituted a reference to this Act and the Lord Chancellor shall make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions of that Schedule, appeals to a tribunal under this Act.
(6) For the purposes of an appeal under the last foregoing subsection the Central Land Board shall at the request of the appellant or of the Tribunal furnish to the appellant and to the Tribunal a statement setting out the particulars of the grounds upon which the development charge was determined by them, together with any facts and contentions relevant thereto.

6 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The effect of this Amendment would be that the developer who was aggrieved by the amount of a development charge assessed on him would be able to appeal to a tribunal set up under the War Damage Valuation Appeal Act, 1945, and he would be able, therefore, to appeal against the Central Land Board's determination of the development charge. This Amendment was carried in another place, and I understand a somewhat similar Amendment was carried into the English Bill as well. The position under the Bill

is that the State will acquire the development rights in land and will sell them as people sell any other commodities. Today, for instance, if a person is disposing of a commodity of that kind, he does not grant the right of appeal to any other person against a decision he may make, and why the Central Land Board should be treated differently from any private individual in that disposal, I cannot understand. Whatever may be said about the Central Land Board it has some public responsibility via the Secretary of State, but at present these development values can be disposed of by any private landlord in whatever way he thinks fit—he may dispose of them in the public interest, if he is a public spirited person, or otherwise according to his tastes or desires.
In the case of the Central Land Board we think it should be put, in the disposal of these development charges, in no worse a position than private individuals. It may be argued that the Central Land Board has a monopoly and that there ought to be some right of appeal. Frequently in a particular district a private person may well have that monopoly too, although not a monopoly right through the country. The policy of keeping up' development charges beyond the market price would in itself defeat its own ends, and the Board, like any other person with something to sell, will have to sell it at a price which the market in the ordinary course would have to pay. I cannot accept this Amendment and I trust the House will agree that the Central Land Board, in disposing of development rights, should be treated as a private landlord is now treated—allowed to dispose of them in a market of which it can take the best advantage.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I do not like to say so, but I think the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has treated the House with scant respect in advancing such a flimsy argument for his disagreement with this Amendment. He advanced one argument only, that the State is acquiring development rights in land and that the job of the Central Land Board is to sell these rights on behalf of the State and in that respect, he said, it is in exactly the same position as an ordinary private landlord. The hon. Gentleman rested the whole of his


case upon that, and I want to argue from that premise because we on this side of the House say that the analogy with a private landlord is not a fair one, and not one which holds water in this case. Why? Because in this case there is an absolute monopoly. The Joint Under-Secretary used that word himself. I am grateful to him for it, though I have not forgotten it.
He and the Government are creating here a virtual monopoly in the holding of land. Any private individual who desires to develop his land in any way, however small, has to go to the Central Land Board and to accept their determination of what the development charge will be without any appeal whatever to any individual or to any body or to the Secretary of State. We say that is a totally un-British thing. It is almost unknown in any of our administrative organisations. It is something which is quite alien to our British conception of what is right and just. If that is doubted, let me quote one or two instances where the State has deliberately, and presumably with its eyes open, recognised the need for an appeal.
When the Railway Rates Tribunal was set up, it was recognised that the railways held a monopolistic position and that, therefore, anyone who is aggrieved with the determination of the railways on what rates should be charged for freight could appeal to the Railway Rates Tribunal. One who is aggrieved with the determination of the Income Tax Assessors with regard to his Income Tax can appeal to the Special Commissioners. Anyone who is in dispute with the Inland Revenue Department about the Estate Duty which is to be charged has a similar right of appeal. There is also a right of appeal under the War Damage Commission. One could multiply instances of the checks and balances there are. Our constitution is built on the idea. I do not need to remind hon. Members, I do not need to remind the hon. Gentleman, who is a great admirer of our constitution, of the theory of checks and balances that, when a monopoly is erected, somehow we find an outlet for the individual to make his voice heard against the possible harshness of that monopoly.
The hon. Gentleman told us in Committee, we were told on Report, and we have been told time and time again, that this Board will not be an inhuman, unapproachable body. We learned that people who are aggrieved with the assessment of development charge which is made will be able to meet the officers of the board face to face, to sit opposite them and to discuss with them. Presumably it follows from that, that the Central Board will not be tied too rigidly by Treasury Regulations, but that they will have power in individual cases to go a little higher or a little lower and to meet the point of view advanced by the individual who is appealing against the determination of the development charge. That is all to the good. We on this side have said consistently that there ought to be a right for an individual to go before the officers of this board to state his case, to say why it is he thinks the assessment they have made is too high and why it should be reduced.
After all, we are dealing not only with the big developer, with rich people who are able to build up, buy great building estates, to indulge in large lucrative opportunities for erecting blocks of flats; we are dealing with the small man too, with the private individual who wants to put a garage by his house or to add a room; with the industrialist who has a little land adjoining his factory upon which he has always intended to expand. That man, when he goes to the Central Land Board and seeks to be told what the development charge will be if he is to carry out that development, will inevitably feel that the Board are in a very strong position, because they know he is the only man who can carry out development on that land. They will know that his factory plant is there, and all his ancillary buildings, canteens, powerhouses, and all the things which make it desirable and more economical for him to extend on that land, rather than go elsewhere and buy land in some other place.
That man will feel a sense of grievance that he is not able to appeal against the determination of the development charge. He not only wants to be treated fairly, but to feel that he is being treated fairly. That surely is the right of every Scotsman, every Englishman, every Britisher, to have a fair deal, and if he feels it is not fair, at least to have the right of


appeal against it. The Joint Under-Secretary did not raise any objection to the type of tribunal which was proposed. I am not at all sure that in the case of Scotland it is the right one. The Act of Parliament under which this tribunal was set up does not apply to Scotland. I give the hon. Gentleman that point, although it is hardly germane to the discussion, as he is rejecting the Amendment in any case. There are other tribunals, and one which applies to Scotland is the War Works Commission set up under Section 1 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945.
I do not think anyone on this side of the House would mind very much to which tribunal an appeal is allowed, so long as an appeal is allowed to some tribunal. We say that the Government in setting up this complicated machinery, and placing these monopolistic powers in the hands of a small board of nine or 10 men, ought in fairness and wisdom to allow some kind of appeal against the determination that is made. We feel that very strongly indeed. We have never failed to express our view of the need for the right of appeal, and we will press it to the uttermost lengths today, because we believe it is a question of justice and equity.

Mr. McKie: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) in deploring the way in which the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland asked the House to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment which, from our point of view, at all events, is very important. I only hope he left my hon. Friend and myself under an erroneous impression as regards the brusque way in which we thought he dealt with the matter. I hope that as the Debate proceeds he, or his colleague, will say that they are impressed by the cogency of our arguments, and that we may be shown to have been at fault in our deductions from the manner and temper of the hon. Gentleman's presentation of his case to the House this afternoon. I am amazed, and I think my hon. Friend is amazed, to hear the Joint Under-Secretary extolling the private landlords of Scotland, and holding them up as an example in the way he did this afternoon. If the hon. Gentleman reflects on his words, or reads them in HANSARD tomorrow—no doubt

they will have been taken down with considerable accuracy by the Official Reporters, because he speaks with lucidity—he will see that, in effect, his comparison of the lot of what we think are these unfortunate individuals who want a right of appeal against the determination of development charge, will not be a good comparison. The hon. Gentleman said that in the Central Land Board will be only vested in the future the rights and privileges which private landlords now enjoy. I quite agree. We have pointed out time after time in this Bill that the Government are setting up a new landlord for Scotland, a voracious monster——

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): indicated dissent.

Mr. McKie: Time will show whether we are right, or whether the right hon. Gentleman and his associates are right. I see that the other Joint Under-Secretary shook his head when I said that it was likely to be voracious. But, after all, there are two sides to every question. Although the hon. Gentleman did not mean to suggest that everything had been so good under the private landlords of Scotland, he has said that by vesting the rights, hitherto vested in the private landlords of Scotland, in the Central Land Board, everything in the garden will be lovely as far as the right of appeal, which we wish to see made certain, is concerned. I hope the Central Land Board will exercise its powers as favourably towards these people as the Joint Under-Secretary thinks they will. I would have had more confidence in private landlords in the way they would have exercised their rights, than in this new great central landlord. We know perfectly well that the social conscience of Scotland would never have allowed any private landlord to act in any way injuriously or prejudicially to the right of any individual large or small——

Mr. Gallacher: Oh.

Mr. McKie: —who might appeal against the determination of the development charges. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) dissents from that point of view. I would pay him the compliment of saying that no doubt as a result of the way in which he would stampede Scotland and put Questions on the Order Paper


any private landlord who wished to act unfairly would be prevented from so doing. I make him a present of that. I hope the Joint Under-Secretary will reflect and see the force of what we have been expressing, and that very large numbers of people may be affected by not having the right of appeal which we wish to see inserted against the Central Land Board in certain circumstances. I agree with my hon. Friend that perhaps the proposal outlined in the Amendment about the possibility of an appeal—
to a Tribunal consisting of a member or members of the panel constituted under Part I of the Schedule to the War Damage (Valuation Appeals) Act, 1945,
—may not be the happiest suggestion that could be made. But I understand from my hon. Friend——

Mr. Buchanan: I think that in fairness to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly to the noble Lords in another place, I ought to say that we knew this appeal was ineffective. I could have used the argument, but it would have been unfair to have done so. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment knew that also. He knew we were going to press our point of view and there was no need for an elaborate change. If the Government were going to accept it they would have brought it into line with modern practice.

Mr. McKie: I quite see that point. It is certainly not my wish to criticise what I think has been the wisdom of another place in this matter. Our one idea is to have some kind of appeal board to which these people, who may feel aggrieved in regard to the way in which they are assessed for development charges, may appeal. That is the position. The intervention of the hon. Gentleman has left me without any hope at all, despite the cogency of our arguments. The position now is like nearly everything else which has been advanced in the two years through which this Parilament has run—the weight of argument has been on this side of the House. So it is tonight. The hon. Gentleman has already indicated that he will not accept this Amendment, even after hearing what we have had to say. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I shall be obliged if the hon.

Gentleman, will speak up. Then I can appreciate whether he is Order or not.

Mr. McKie: I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have softened his rather hard heart on this matter, and acceded to the idea underlying this Amendment by inserting some form of words as an Amendment to the Amendment, which would have given effect to the wishes of another place and to our wishes on this side of the House, by providing some kind of tribunal to which these people might go—people who, as a result of not having such a tribunal, may find themselves seriously prejudiced.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I intervene with a great deal of diffidence in a Scottish Debate. It is the first time I have ever done so, though I was elected to this House 23 years ago. I can claim to be a Scotsman by birth. I intend to pose a question to the Government which I hope they can answer. The effect of the Clauses which we are now discussing is to provide certain rules which the Central Land Board will have to follow in assessing the amount of charge which they intend to make against a would-be developer. There are three or four sets of rules which they will have to follow in assessing that charge. There is, for example, a clear declaration that they are to have regard to the probable increase in the value of the land by reason of the development. Then there is an Amendment, which has just been inserted, that the Central Land Board are not to give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to one applicant over another.
This is what I wish to ask the Government: Suppose a would-be developer makes an application to the Board and asks for an assessment to be made, and, when he gets the amount of the assessment, believes genuinely that the Board have not carried out their duty. For example, he believes that they are discriminating against him compared with another developer of a similar kind; or, again, that they have charged him an excessive amount, having regard to the probable increase in value of the land; or it may be a purely legal question of the Board having disregarded some regulations which are to be made under the Bill governing the method of their assessment.


A developer might be quite genuinely and correctly of opinion that in fact the Board have either made a mistake, or have acted in a capricious manner. What can the developer do in order to get this matter put right, if there is to be no right of appeal? It is all very well to provide that there shall not be discrimination, but we must put some machinery in the Bill to ensure that there will be no discrimination. If there is no right of appeal, what can a developer do in order to protect his rights?

Sir William Darling: I do not share the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie). I feel sure that the Joint Under-Secretary will see the intention of the Lords Amendment, which quite clearly concerns
any person aggrieved by any assessment or determination of the amount of a development charge. …
I am sure that the Government recognise that there may be some reasonable grievances regarding a development charge. I put it to the Joint Under-Secretary that he would be the last man in the world to deny a right of appeal somewhere. I understand that the appeal will lie with the Secretary of State. I take it that the only appeal will be through the House of Commons.

Mr. Buchanan: indicated dissent.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, so I take it there will be no appeal. That, I submit, to the hon. Member's fair and just mind, is very harsh. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) made it quite clear that the situation is a harder one than it would be with a private landlord. If I am dealing with a private landlord, and he wants too large a development charge, I can go to another landlord. It may not be so convenient, but I can find another piece of land belonging to someone who is more amenable to my needs. Under the Bill there will be no other landlord to whom to go. This is surely the expropriation of the Scots from Scotland. Formerly one could choose among the "bad and wicked" landlords, but there was a choice. Under the Bill I have ho choice. There is to be only one universal landlord, one complete, entire, exclusive monopoly, and under that the citizen has no rights.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen for his lesson on the opportunities of appeal which are given in other circumstances. I submit that under most legislation the right of appeal is the one thing that the citizen has left under the increasing authority of the State. State monopolies are universal. Whether it be an employee or an independent citizen in relation to a State organisation, whether it be the mines or the railways, or any of the multifarious State organisations with which we are increasingly faced, is it the wish of the Government that the individual shall have no right whatever, that the State is to be the supreme final landlord, and that the State's decision is final? That is what we are doing in this Bill. It is creditable to their Lordships that they have been touched by the lamentable situation of the private person, and so have put down this Amendment. I would repeat the wording:
Any person aggrieved by any assessment or determination of the amount of a development charge …
Does the Joint Under-Secretary seriously tell the House that among the transactions which will inevitably follow the passing of this Bill no one will ever be aggrieved, that no one will ever be rightly aggrieved, that no one will be done a great wrong? Does he tell me that he intends to perpetuate the principle of doing great wrongs without the right of appeal? This long battle for social justice and economic rights surely reaches an anti-climax when the Joint Under-Secretary says that the citizen shall have no right of appeal, that the State is the overlord, the master, the controller of all our destinies, and that it is under that Juggernaut that we must live or die. Can he not find some principle, some machinery, whereby the citizens of Scotland will be free to appeal against what they think is an injustice?
The people of Scotland have never been slow to appeal against injustice. Their history has been a long fight against tyranny, the tyranny of the State, the tyranny of landlord, the tyranny of the Church, the tyranny of the capitalist. The last tyranny has been swallowed up by the greatest tyranny of all, the final tyranny, the tyranny of the State. I beg the hon. Gentleman to find some way out, some tiny space that the mouse might find through which to creep


out from under the wheel of the Juggernaut car.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I never thought to live to see the day when a leading Scottish Socialist would found the whole of his case on the necessity for following the good example of the private landlord. That was the whole case which the hon. Gentleman made—that because the private landlord has a right to dictate, to say "Yes" or "No" at his own sweet will, it was so good an example that the State must follow it. Accordingly, either the hon. Gentleman was talking with his tongue in his cheek, or else all the tirades that we have heard for generations about the monstrous way in which the ordinary man is subjected to the whims of the powerful landlord were just vote catching devices. The hon. Gentleman can have it whichever way he likes, but one or the other must be the case. I do not want to repeat what has already been said by my hon. Friends but I want to ask the hon. Gentleman why he is afraid of an appeal? What is he afraid of? Is he afraid of there being so many cases that he cannot tackle them administratively? If he is afraid of that, it means that he believes that the whole of this system is fundamentally unjust, because one does not have a multitude of appeals if, on the whole, justice is being done. Then one only has very few appeals. Therefore, if there is any question of his being afraid that there will be a clog in the administrative machine, that means that he has no belief in the essential justice of his scheme.
If he is not afraid of that, what is it? Is it extra expense to the State? I should not have thought so, because on more than one occasion he has reversed a good practice, which was established under a previous Government, of the State bearing the expense of these tribunals, and he has put the expense on the unfortunate person who has to go to the tribunal. If he wants to do that, I would accept it as better than nothing. I would not ask that the expense of these appeals should be put upon the State. But it cannot be that. If it is not administrative inconvenience or expense to the State, what is it—delay? I see the hon. Gentleman shakes his head. It is not delay.

Mr. Buchanan: Really, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must let me move my head sometimes. I am not a prisoner at the bar.

Mr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman is always very good at saving time in these Debates. He frequently indicates when one is on a false point. I always make a point of taking his indication and departing at once. If it is delay, let me examine that aspect for a moment and see what it amounts to. If he was afraid of a vast multitude of appeals, of course there might be delay. If he is only afraid of a few appeals, how can there be delay? He can have his own tribunal sitting there ready to undertake cases, and the cases will come up quickly. What does delay matter to him? It is the developer who is voluntarily submitting to delay by going to the appeal tribunal. It does not matter a bit to the hon. Gentleman whether or not there is delay. What is the alternative? If the developer does not have an appeal, instead of delay probably we will not get the development at all. The developer will say, "I thought I was going to make a little money from this development. I now think I am being treated unjustly and charged too much. The regulations are being applied wrongly against me. What do I do? I just do not develop at all. I stay where I am and take any advantage of any increment values that comes to the property in its existing state without trying to benefit myself and the country." That is what it does. It discourages development.
I have said before that I thought that this Bill would have a most serious effect in discouraging development in Scotland. It will have an even more serious effect if its operation engenders in the minds of those affected a feeling of injustice. That is bound to happen if there is no appeal. It is bound to happen because the best tribunal in the world will never avoid some feeling of injustice in those whom it has assessed. If a person finds that the original tribunal and the appeal tribunal both take the same view, he is much more inclined to think, "Perhaps after all I may be wrong and they may be right," but he will not think that about this tribunal.
I now come to the point which differentiates Scotland from England. This is a reason why I think the hon. Gentleman could very well afford to allow an appeal


in Scotland even though this House rejected an appeal in England. The main body of the Central Land Board is an English body sitting in England. There will be something like six or seven members who will deal with these matters. No doubt the difficult ones will be dealt with by the whole Board. Those members will be in touch with English conditions. There may even be a lawyer among them to keep the tribunal right on questions of law. It is possible that the tribunal may—one hopes that it will—in the majority of cases reach a reasonably just decision. But what have we got for Scotland? We have been refused a separate tribunal. We have been told we are to have two members who will come to Edinburgh and give the office there the benefit of their assistance. Observe what that means. Either these difficult cases in Scotland are to be dealt with simply by the official staff in the office, which will hardly be satisfactory, or they are to be dealt with by one or both of these two members in the course of a fleeting visit to Edinburgh, or they are to come down to London for decision. There is no other possibility. All those possibilities, I venture to suggest, are unsatisfactory. If these difficult cases—and I shall show how difficult they are in a moment—are to be dealt with simply by the office staff in Edinburgh, I doubt very much whether the system will work well and I am sure that there will be a great deal of dissatisfaction and a great feeling of injustice in many quarters.
Is it any better to have the two peripatetic members of the Committee or the Board coming to Edinburgh to decide? Are two people a sufficient number to decide very difficult questions of legal interpretation and valuation, and others which I will come to in a moment? Are two people enough? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the whole development of Scotland should be in the hands of two men and that if they make a mistake then nothing can be done, because I do not think that he is going to give directions on this? What happens if they disagree? Are we to come to England then with the difficult cases to submit them to members of the Board who are not familiar with Scottish conditions? Is that what is to happen, or at the end of the day is the administration of this Bill to be, as we suggested at an earlier stage, really in the

hands of an English Board? That seems to be the only way in which the hon. Gentleman will get a decision. I doubt if Scotland realises—I doubt if the hon. Gentleman himself realises—that the only way in which he can avoid constant reference to England in difficult cases is to give an appeal to some body sitting in Scotland.
What are these cases? My hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has already referred to the question of undue preference. The Amendment which we have just accepted is completely meaningless unless we have an appeal. No body, large or small, skilled or unskilled, is going deliberately to give a preference if they thought it to be undue or unfair. Therefore, we might as well not have had the Amendment. I cannot imagine that any body, or any single person, would ever grant a preferance which he thought was unfair, undue or unreasonable, to keep to the words of the Amendment. The House will observe that it is not a prohibition against giving any preference at all, but a prohibition against giving an undue or unreasonable preference. That might mean something if there was an appeal from the person who fixes the assessment to somebody who could apply an independent judgment to the question whether the preference was undue or unreasonable, but it means nothing at all if the man who fixes the assessment is the same man who has the final say whether the preference is unreasonable or not. That is of no value at all.

Mr. Buchanan: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman want me to put the thing back as it was before?

Mr. Reid: We have already passed that, but I would not mind a bit if the hon. Gentleman had done, because it means nothing. Obviously, their Lordships in another place put in these two Amendments, and the hon. Gentleman has accepted one and rejected the other, thereby depriving the first of all its value, unless he says that he is going to appoint people to the Central Land Board who would deliberately give a preference which was unreasonable. If he is going to appoint people like that, the Amendment may have some meaning; otherwise, it has none. I now come to the next question——

Mr. Kirkwood: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman know of the case of the crofter's land in which there was no appeal?

Mr. Reid: I confess I do not follow that, but I have myself conducted an appeal in such cases, and the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that we have a Scottish lawyer presiding in a Scottish land court, and, if they go wrong on a point of law, there is an appeal to the Court of Session. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman does not know the position. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not on points of law."] Very well, I should like that as being better than nothing—if we had an appeal on points of law—if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to give us that.

Mr. Kirkwood: But there is no appeal against the decision of the court.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Reid: As a matter of fact, there are such things as mixed questions of fact and law, and it is the case that, if a tribunal goes so far wrong as to decide in a sense for which there is no evidence at all, one can upset that in a court of law. If they weigh the evidence wrongly, then I agree that there is no appeal, but I would point out that a question of law can very easily arise here, because Clause 66 (3) states:
such regulations may in particular provide for securing that the amount of the said charge shall be determined on different principles in relation to operations or uses of different classes, or in relation to operations or uses carried out or begun at different periods.
There are at least two different kinds of questions of law that can arise there. We may first have a question of law on what is the meaning of regulations, and, if I know anything about the way in which regulations have been poured out recently, many of them, through no fault of the draftsmen, are drafted rather sketchily, because the draftsmen did not have the time to deal with the job properly. I would make bold to prophesy that there would be a great many questions of law about the meaning of the regulations under this Bill.
There is a further question of law. Different regulations are to apply to different classes of operations, and, therefore, it is a question of law whether a particular operation falls within one class,

where one principle applies, or into another class, where another principle applies. Those are questions of law. Is the hon. Gentleman going to appoint a Scottish lawyer as one of the two people who are appointed to the Central Land Board as representing Scotland? I do not know. I should have thought not myself. I should think it would take two practical valuers all their time to do the job, and that there would not be room to appoint a Scottish lawyer. Very well, who is going to advise these gentlemen on the legal questions that will arise? There is no provision for legal assessors in difficult cases. I should think there would be some consultation of some kind behind the scenes, and some kind of a decision for which nobody is really responsible, and that would be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I beg the hon. Gentleman to realise that the position in Scotland, since he has refused us a separate board, is quite different and much more liable to lead to trouble than the position in England. He can prevent that situation perfectly easily if he will agree to an appeal in Scottish cases. It would be going some way to put right the wrong which he has done by depriving Scotland of a proper board or even committee of its own. I would ask him, for those reasons, not to rely on the argument—which I am sure he did not mean as a real argument—of administrative convenience, or on the argument of what this House has done in different circumstances, but to take a line of his own and realise that we have a practical problem here of our own and do something to meet it.

Mr. Buchanan: I must confess that the right hon. and learned Gentleman amazed me with his capacity for attacking what he has even asked me to do himself. For instance, let us take what has happened. In Committee upstairs and on the Report stage, we spent a lot of time on this issue on which it was alleged that there was a difference of treatment between one person and another. We spent far longer on that than on this point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now raising. We spent hours on that matter, and we gave a guarantee, but, when we gave them more than they asked for, the right hon. and learned Gentleman now says, "You should not have given me what we spent hours talking about. You should


not have wasted your time. It really does not matter and, if you drop it, I do not care." The right hon. and learned Gentleman's ingenious way of attacking me and arguing is masterly.
Let me take the purpose of the Amendment we are now discussing. I would say to the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) that I rather like English Members to intervene in our Scottish Debates, and I have always taken the view that they might help us very much in our Scottish problems. I do not agree with the remark I heard the other night on the wireless when an hon. Member was saying that it was a Scottish question which the House was discussing and that he took his nose out and walked away. That is not the way in which English hon. Members should treat us, and I therefore welcome the intervention of the hon. Member. What happens if we have no appeal? This Amendment confines itself to one point alone, that is, an appeal against a charge that we will make. That is the only point with which this Amendment is concerned. Appeals on other matters do not arise here; the only thing that does arise is the appeal on the development charge. Even if I accepted the Amendment, the appeal court could not deal with the points raised by the hon. Member. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that if a board breaks instructions laid down by Act of Parliament, there can always be an appeal to the court against it in that connection.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I should like to hear the hon. and learned Lord Advocate on that, because I doubt it.

Mr. Buchanan: If, let us say, a board connected with unemployment insurance does not carry out the law as laid down, one can take action against it in the courts.

Mr. Reid: indicated dissent.

Mr. Buchanan: Oh, yes, action could be taken if the provisions of the law were not carried out. The Amendment with which we are concerned deals only with the setting up of an appeal board to consider the price which the Central Land Board charges.

Mr. Reid: Surely, if, for instance, I say that the price is too high, because there has been an undue preference, or because a regulation has not been followed,

or, again, because the wrong regulation has been applied under this Amendment, the appeal tribunal would have to determine this question?

Mr. Buchanan: Despite what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, this Amendment deals with only one thing—the price of the development charge.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Gentleman said that there would be a right of appeal to the courts if the Central Land Board disregarded the law, and we now have in this Bill an express statement that the Central Land Board are not to discriminate. Does than mean that there would be a right of appeal in every case by a developer who had received an assessment, on the basis that there was discrimination against him?

Mr. Buchanan: It is not a question of a right of appeal, but a question of court action against anybody who does not carry out the law. On one occasion, the law laid it down that three members appointed by the Minister of Labour should constitute the appeal board to decide a particular matter, and to decide it on certain grounds. Some individuals took the view that the members of this board had not dealt with the matter according to the Act, and, on that ground, they appealed to the court, who heard them. There can always be an appeal to the Court of Session on the ground that the Central Land Board has ignored the Act of Parliament as laid down by this House.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) said that people have a right of appeal in connection with Income Tax, and a number of other matters. But this Board is dealing with an entirely different thing; it is selling development rights, and it is selling those rights in the best possible market. It thinks that it is entitled to charge a fair and reasonable price. If one takes the view that the Central Land Board will constantly be screwing down people to what they consider to be the last penny, then there is the right of appeal, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman carried the matter a stage further. He argued that there should be a right of appeal against the Central Land Board, not merely in respect to the price charged, but in respect of everything it does, because, not being a Scottish body,


they could not be trusted to do the work, and that, therefore, another non-Scottish body should be set up to appeal against the Central Land Board. That is carrying the matter too far.
I repeat, without necessarily being ashamed of it, that it is a conflict between the two sides. I say this to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie)—I will give him something to use at the elections; we have all used certain things at the elections, but, in that respect, perhaps the hon. Member for Gorbals could claim to have used them less than most. If one sits for a comparatively good seat one needs to pledge less than others, who are only dealing with a few hundred votes. I say this, that the Central Land Board is a publicly appointed body, appointed by a public servant, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with his colleague across the Border. It is a responsible body composed, presumably, of people responsible for their job. I say that a public body ought to be trusted to do its work in at least the same way as private landlords have been allowed to do theirs for generations past. Private landlords have had this right for a long period of years without any interference, and without there being any feeling of injustice in regard to it. I believe that the Central Land Board will do its work in a creditable fashion.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I had not intended to intervene in the discussion on this particular Clause because I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, as, owing to the absence of a ticker tape in the silence room, I did not know that we had got as far as this. We want to emphasise that an aggrieved person has no appeal. I cannot understand how hon. Members opposite, who represent Scottish constituencies, can sit quiet while this matter is being discussed and not make one word of protest in support of a principle which, I have always understood, they have fought for all their political lives. It is most indicative of what has happened to Scottish Members opposite that they should sit quiet while one of their lifelong principles is swept away under their very noses.
The Joint Under-Secretary, with, his usual frankness and humour, has put a

very clear case before us, but I think he has avoided the one thing that matters, which is that a State organisation is being set up against which there is no appeal. That is the very negation of freedom, however big or however small the matter may be. It is the State versus one individual, and that individual has no appeal. I cannot believe that hon. Members opposite are going to put that principle in black and white on recording their votes on this particular matter. Had the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) laid down this principle, I should have said, "All credit to him; he sticks to his Parliamentary and party principles." But I have always understood that his principles were anathema to the Socialists. Is this possibly a new set-up? I think most emphatically that, before we leave this point—and I sincerely hope that we are going to vote on it—we must record the fact that a State organisation—and heaven knows what tyrants they can be—is going to say to an individual, "This is what you are going to do; there can be no argument, and there is no appeal." To my mind, that is horrible, and I make no bones about it at all.

7.0 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I am somewhat disappointed to note that we have not had one speech from the benches behind the Joint Under-Secretary of State; there has not been a single remark from them. Surely, the discipline which the hon. Gentleman can impose on his followers is something remarkable.
Most amazing of all is this: I had hoped tonight that we should be listening not only to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, but also to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). We have not. We have been listening to the Under-Secretary, and his voice is very different from that which we used to hear from the hon. Member for Gorbals. Let me state one thing which struck me as being extraordinarily curious coming from him Here is a great public board to be set up—a public board which, it is said, will always be right and just. If I take my mind back, I can hear the hon. Gentleman using those words in relation to the public assistance boards. Yet he has claimed for another similar board just those virtues which he questioned in relation to the public assistance boards.

Mr. Buchanan: I am amazed at the hon. and gallant Gentleman's impudence. [Interruption.] We in Glasgow understand our language much better than some other people do. A public assistance board, with three members, two of whom sometimes did not turn up, could determine how an old couple had to live, and there was not a single appeal against any decision the board might make

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman has really proved my point for me. That is exactly what I have been saying. Here we have a public board, and the hon. Gentleman does not know how many people will attend it Will there always be a full number? The hon. Gentleman has repeated my argument, almost word for word. As for misunderstanding the hon. Gentleman's use of words, I quite agree that he used the word "impudence" in a way which, if he and I were talking to gentlemen south of the Border, might cause some ill-feeling. I have no ill-feeling whatever about the use of the word. But the hon. Gentleman must remember his former days and the battles he fought then, and compare them with what he is doing now. He said a moment ago that there ought to have been

an appeal from the public assistance board. Of course, there should have been, and there should be an appeal in this case, too.

The hon. Gentleman also said that we on this side of the House were assuming that the Board would "screw people down." How does the hon. Gentleman know that that will not happen, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer behind him, and that every penny possible will be screwed out of them? The hon. Gentleman said he was amazed at the arguments which I have been using. I am far more amazed and disappointed by the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has used, and, indeed, I am disappointed that hon. Members sitting behind him have not raised their voices as they would have done two years ago, in support of the right of appeal for the people of Scotland. In the circumstances, we have no option but to divide against the Government.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 100.

Division No. 367.]
AYES.
[7.05 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Brown, T J (Ince)
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Buchanan, G.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Burden, T. W.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Burke, W. A
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Alpass, J. H.
Carmichael, James
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Chamberlain. R. A
Evans, S N. (Wednesbury)


Anderson, F (Whitehaven)
Chater, D.
Fairhurst, F.


Attewell, H. C.
Chetwynd, G R.
Farthing, W. J


Austin, H. Lewis
Cluse, W. S
Fernyhough, E.


Awbery, S. S.
Cobb, F. A
Field, Captain W J


Ayles, W. H.
Cooks, F. S
Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)


Ayrton Gould. Mrs B
Coldrick, W.
Follick, M.


Baird, J
Collick, P
Foot, M. M


Balfour, A.
Collindridge, F.
Foster, W. (Wigan)


Barnes, Rt Hon A. J
Collins, V. J
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Barstow, P. G.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Gaitskell, H T. N.


Barton, C.
Cook, T. F
Gallacher, W.


Battley, J. R.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr G.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Bechervaise, A. E
Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N. W.)
Gibbins, J.


Belcher, J W
Corlett, Dr. J.
Gilzean, A.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon F J.
Corvedale, Viscount
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Benson, G
Cove, W. G
Goodrich, H. E.


Berry, H
Crawley, A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A (Wakefield)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Grenfell, D. R


Bing G. H. C
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Grey, C. F.


Binns, J
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Grierson, E.


Blackburn, A. R
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, R. J (Westhoughton)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Blyton, W. R
Davies, S. O (Merthyr)
Griffiths, W D (Moss Side)


Boardman, H
Deer, G.
Gunter, R. J.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Guy, W. H.


Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)
Diamond, J.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Braddock, Mrs. E M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Dobbie, W.
Hale, Leslie


Braddock T. (Mitcham)
Dodds, N N
Hamilton, Lt.-Col R


Bramall, E A
Donovan, T
Hardy, E. A.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Driberg, T E N
Harrison, J.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Durbin, E. F. M
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Brown, George (Belper)
Ede, Rt Hon. J. C
Haworth, J.




Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Messer, F.
Skinnard, F. W.


Harbison, Miss M
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Hicks, G.
Mikardo, Ian
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Hobson, C. R
Mitchison, G. R.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Holman, P
Monslow, W
Solley, L. J.


House, G.
Moody, A. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hoy, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Sparks, J. A.


Hubbard, T.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Stamford, W


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Mort, D L
Steele, T.


Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)
Moyle, A.
Stephen, C.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mulvey, A
Stross, Dr. B.


Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Nally, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Naylor, T E.
Swingler, S.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Nicholls, H R (Stratford)
Sylvester, G. O.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Irving, W. J
Oldfield, W. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Jay, D. P. T.
Orbach, M.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Paget, R. T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Keenan, W
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Kenyon, C.
Pargiter, G. A.
Tiffany, S.


Key, C. W.
Parker, J.
Titterington, M. F.


King, E. M
Parkin, B. T.
Tolley, L.


Kinley, J.
Paton, J (Norwich)
Usborne, Henry


Kirby, B. V.
Pearson, A
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Kirkwood, D
Peart, Thomas F.
Viant, S. P.


Lavers, S.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J J.
Popplewell, E
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Leonard, W.
Price, M. Philips
Weitzman, D.


Leslie, J. R.
Pritt, D. N.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Levy, B. W.
Proctor, W. T.
Wells, W. T (Walsall)


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Pursey, Cmdr. H
West, D. G.


Lewis, J (Bolton)
Ranger, J.
White, H (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Lindgren, G. S.
Rankin, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Rees-Williams, D. R
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Logan, D. G
Reeves, J.
Wilkes, L.


Longden, F
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Lyne, A. W
Rhodes, H.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


McAdam, W.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


McAllister, G.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


McEntee, V. La T.
Royle, C.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


McGhee, H. G
Scollan, T.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


McGovern, J.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Willis, E.


Mackay, R. W G. (Hull, N. W.)
Segal, Dr. S.
Wills, Mrs. E. A


McLeavy, F.
Shackleton, E A. A.
Wilson, J. H. J.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sharp, Granville
Wise, Major F. J.


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Woodburn, A.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H (St. Helens)
Wyatt, W.


Mallalieu, J. P W.
Shurmer, P.
Yates, V. F.


Mann, Mrs. J.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Zilliacus, K.


Marshall, F (Brightside)
Simmons, C. J



Mathers, G
Skeffington, A. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Medland, H. M.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and




Mr. Hannan.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Langford-Holt, J.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke. Maj. E. A. H.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lindsay, M (Solihull)


Baldwin, A E.
Duthie, W. S
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Beamish, Maj. T V. H
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Beechman, N. A.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Lucas, Maj. Sir J.


Bennett, Sir P
Galbraith, Cmdr. T D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Gammans, L. D.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O


Bower, N.
Clyn Sir R
McCallum, Maj. D


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Grimston, R V.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Challen, C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maitland, Comdr, J. W.


Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Manningham-Buller, R. E


Cole, T. L.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Marples, A. E.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hurd, A
Marshal, D. (Bodmin)


Crosthwaile-Eyre, Col. O. E
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Maude, J. C.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Kendall, W. D.
Mellor, Sir J.


Darling, Sir W. Y
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Molson, A. H. E.


Digby, S. W.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.







Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Vane, W. M. F.


Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Wadsworth, G.


Nicholson, G.
Sanderson, Sir F.
Walker-Smith, D.


Nield, B. (Chester)
Savory, Prof. D. L
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Scott, Lord W.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Spearman, A. C. M
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Pickthorn, K.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ponsonby, Col. C. E
Sutcliffe, H.
York, C.


Prescott, Stanley
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)



Raikes, H. V.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ramsay, Major S
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.


Rayner, Brig. R
Touche, G. C.



Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 77.—(Land ripe for development before the appointed day.)

Lords Amendment: In page 92, line 6, at the end, insert:
or,
(c) that the land together with any land contiguous or adjacent to such land was on the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, or would have been but for circumstances arising out of the emergency which was the occasion of the passing of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939, in the course of development as a residential commercial or industrial estate and that the proposed development is or would be immediately practicable but for such circumstances as aforesaid and that there is a demand for such development.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment was carried in another place, although the Government did not seek to press their disagreement with it to a vote because there had been already, on the same principle, a Division on the English Bill, and it was felt to be of no use to have another Division on the principle in this case. The noble Lord who moved this Amendment explained that it was intended to widen the definition in the Bill of what is described as "dead ripe land." This Amendment proposes to extend the definition in the Bill to make it applicable to land in the course of development and land that, but for the war, would have been in the course of development. It also extends it by saying that the proposed development of the land is or would be immediately practicable but for the war and circumstances arising out of the war.
We debated this point in the Committee upstairs, as we did most of the matters of these Amendments. I read the discussions on the English Bill, so that I know that there constantly arose in them the issue that some things were not discussed

because of the operation of the timetable. I think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will agree that, on this main issue that we are now discussing, we had our doubts upstairs in the Scottish Grand Committee. There is no issue on which we have so much doubt as we have on this issue of dead ripe land, its definition, and where it was to be said to begin and where it was to be said to end.
7.15 p.m.
Let me make an admission. I do it with some temerity, because the longer I am at this office, and the longer I have to deal with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the more I find that the less one admits, and the less one puts things straightforwardly, telling what is in one's thoughts, the less difficulty one gets into. When we tell people things, they pick them up and use them against us, and that makes one fearful of telling the truth. In our discussions upstairs I made this admission which I am going to make here. Always in the field of definition in legislation we have the difficulty of what is on the one side or the other of the borderline. We always have some marginal cases and some difficult cases which come near the borderline. So I do not deny that here, as in every other case where there is a definition, difficulties will arise.
When I have said so much let me say what is our definition. We have defined dead ripe land as being excluded land the owner of which applied to the planning authority for permission to develop, having taken such steps as would lead the local planning people and the local authority to think he was going to develop it. That is what we have excluded. He must have taken certain definite steps. If he fails to do that, we cannot bring him within the category. We do recognise—and I say this frankly—that there must be a number of borderline cases, cases which make it difficult.
So I will say a word or two on how we deal with what we would term the difficult case. Here I say I know I bring myself into conflict—quite honestly in conflict—with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side. I know that on what I am going to propound they will make a claim on the £300 million. I know that the consistent line of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite has been to take as many people out of this claim on the £300 million as they could, in order to leave the £300 million to go to as few people as possible, to benefit them the more. I recognise that I shall find myself in disagreement with them.
What do we do with persons on the borderline? We lay it down here that in the case of what we call, for the sake of the nearest word, "near ripe land"—and this was announced even in the English Bill—we propose to be covered by a scheme covering land held on 7th January, 1947, which, taking all into account, it was reasonable to expect would in five years be developed—or which any person who would take it in the same period would develop—for reasonable purposes of, say, building houses for their own occupation or factories for their own use. To say that that class is a special category in the claim on the £300 million, for almost if not equal treatment, means that the development charge would be cancelled out by the amount that they would get out of the £300 million. I have said this because in my view we can go no further.
I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite will say to me: "Ah, but there is this class of dead ripe land. Where a person has a big estate which he meant to develop it is a hardship on him not to be allowed this concession." I made the last part of my announcement because I thought it went some way to meet that point of view. As from the date I have mentioned, the person concerned must have taken certain steps, and if he has failed to take those steps, he does not come within the scheme. I think I have explained the position of the Government. We have debated this matter at length before, and I have now gone over it again. On this matter I feel that the Government must uphold the view they expressed in Standing Committee, which is the view I have just stated.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I think it is as well that the House should remind itself of the purpose of Clause 77. Although the Joint Under-Secretary referred to the Clause, it was left rather to the imaginations and the long memories of hon. Members, who parted with this Clause many weeks ago now. The purpose of Clause 77 is to deal with what the Government describe not as "dead ripe land"—a phrase used just now by the Joint Under-Secretary—but as "Land ripe for development before the appointed day." The phrase "dead ripe land" is an invention of the Joint Under-Secretary.

Mr. Buchanan: Well, it is much the same. We in Glasgow and the West use that phrase. I was forgetting that the hon. Member comes from another part of Scotland.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I am not concerned with whether in the East or the West they refer to "dead ripe land" or merely to "ripe land." It does not seem to matter very much. The purpose of the Clause is the same: first to exclude land which comes within the category of ripe land or dead ripe land from the right to claim on the global sum under Part V of the Bill; and secondly, to exempt it from liability to pay a development charge under Part VI of the Bill. There is a very definite and narrow definition of ripeness in the Bill which is, broadly speaking, that there must be a building contract in force, or that there must have been an application for permission to build. This Amendment seeks to widen that definition to a small extent, not to a large extent, so as to include land which, on 7th January, 1947, the day upon which the corresponding English Bill was introduced,
was … in the coarse of development as a, residential commercial or industrial estate …
That is to say, that on 7th January last it was in the course of development; or, alternatively, it would have been in the course of such development were it not for the war. That is all this Amendment seeks to do.
It is perfectly true that in Standing Committee we discussed Claue 77, as it is now numbered, at some length; and it is also true that we hammered out the definition of building land which is ripe or dead ripe; but we did not, I think,


apply ourselves specifically to an Amendment in these terms, or have a discussion on land which was actually in the course of development at 7th January last as a residential, commercial or industrial estate. As the Joint Under-Secretary said, any definition gives rise to borderline cases. We all recognise that. And we recognise his difficulty in drawing a line when dealing with something as hard to define as "land ripe for development." But he says, too, that where land is excluded from this definition and from this Clause two things will happen. First, the owner will have a claim on the £300 million. The hon. Member says that we on this side of the House have consistently, during the proceedings of this Bill, tried to narrow the classes of persons eligible for a claim on the £300 million so that those people fortunate enough to participate might have a larger share. I do not think I am misinterpreting him when I say that. What we have said consistently throughout these proceedings is that this £300 million is a quite inadequate sum, and we have never attempted to hide that view. The more people we can leave out the more compensation there will be to share among those who have, as we say, a just claim on the global sum.
Now, at this late stage, we have had what I believe to be the first mention, during the passage of this Bill, of another category of land, which the Joint Under-Secretary referred to as "near ripe land." That may be another Glaswegian expression; land is perhaps either dead ripe or near ripe in Glasgow.

Mr. Buchanan: I assure the hon. Member that this expression is not an invention of mine. For perhaps the only time during this Bill I was quoting an official brief; a thing I rarely do. The expression "near ripe" appears in that brief which, if the hon. Member likes, I will give to him.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I am not disputing that there is such a thing as "near ripe land." I had the advantage of serving on the Standing Committee which considered the English Bill, and I know that this category of "near ripe land" was invented not by the Joint Under-Secretary, but by the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Now, I confess that all the way through the latter stages of our proceedings

in the Standing Committee which considered the Scottish Bill, I expected that either the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Joint Under-Secretary would introduce this new category of land which had been imported by the Minister of Town and Country Planning. I stand open to correction, but I think I am right in saying that this is the first time in our proceedings on the Scottish Bill that there has been any mention of "near ripe land." If we are to have this new category of "near ripe land," the owners of which will be able to take a privileged position at the head of the queue of those people lining up for a share in the inadequate global sum, then we ought to have been told about it earlier.
I do not upon that ground alone express my sorrow that the Government should resist this Amendment. It seems to me that when setting out to define a category of land which is called "Land ripe for development"—to use the words in the rubric to the Clause—one must be thorough about it and include all land which is, in fact, ripe. I do not think the Joint Under-Secretary has convinced the House, in advancing his reasons for rejecting the Amendment, that land upon which development actually started on 7th January, 1947, could today be described in any other terms except as land which is ripe for development. Until he has made a case for rejecting the Amendment, we cannot agree to the proposal for rejection.

CLAUSE 78.—(Mineral workings.)

Lords Amendment: In page 93, line 20, at end, insert:
(c) that where—

(i) a mining lease was in force on the seventh day of January nineteen hundred and forty-seven, having on that day an unexpired term of not less than ten years, or
(ii) minerals were being won and worked immediately before that day by a person having an interest therein otherwise than under a mining lease,

no payment shall be made under the said Part V in respect of any interest in the minerals comprised in the said mining lease, or in any minerals which form part of the same seam or deposit as that in respect of which the operations mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii) of this paragraph were being carried out and in respect of which an interest was held as mentioned in the said sub-paragraph, as the case may be, and that no development charge shall be payable under the said Part VI in respect of the winning and working of the said minerals


under the mining lease referred to in sub-paragraph (i) of this paragraph or in respect of the winning and working of any minerals referred to in the said sub-paragraph (ii) in respect of which no payment has been made under the said Part V as aforesaid.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
All will agree that we spent a considerable time in Committee on this question of mineral rights.

Mr. McKie: Oh.

Mr. Buchanan: Oh, yes we did. It was perhaps one of the few days when the hon. Member was absent, and, if I may say so, it was one of the few days when I was grateful for his absence. He can take it that we did discuss this subject at full length, and the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) took an active part in it. We discussed it in Committee and on Report stage, and the matter was, of course, fully discussed on the English Bill. This Amendment seeks to provide that no payment shall be made where a mining lease was in force on 7th January, 1947, having on that day an unexpired term of not less than 10 years, and minerals being won and worked immediately before that date by a person having an interest therein otherwise than under a mining lease.
We take the view that this Amendment goes too far. Hon. Members opposite may disagree, but I think hon. Members on this side will agree, when I say that the grumble against us is that we have been too generous in our treatment of the mineral owners. We have given them a moratorium for the next three years, during which time they are free from any development charge. Therefore, we are treating them very reasonably in this respect, and the three-year moratorium ought to meet the position. Under the second part of the Amendment, there would be the right, if work had started on a seam, to continue working that seam for the whole of its length. The seam might extend to a considerable extent. We think that that is wrong, and that the mineral rights and the development value attaching ought to come back to the community. We must adhere to our previous position, namely, that the State can make no further concession in this matter. I trust that the House will agree that the

Government, in providing the three-year moratorium, have granted generous treatment to the owners which should cover any complaints there are. As I have said, we consider that the Lords Amendment goes much too far.

Mr. McKie: I am sorry that the Joint Under-Secretary has asked the House to disagree with the Lords in this matter, because if he could have seen his way to accept the Amendment he would have been doing something of very great value for the small capitalist—I use that description for the want of a better term. I do not know why the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) should receive that innocuous term with such hilarity. Perhaps if he listens to what I have to say he will revise his opinion. It is customary to reveal one's interest in matters which are under discussion, and I at once wish to do so. I should not like any Member to think that in speaking in favour of this Lords Amendment I am actuated by any personal self-interest, because if the Government had seen their way to accept the Amendment I, personally, would not have benefited in any way. It is the small capitalist who would benefit as a result of this Amendment being incorporated in the Bill.
I am glad that the Joint Under-Secretary shows his great knowledge of minerals in Scotland. There are many very valuable minerals to be found in Scotland, although they are to be found in very small quantities. If these words had been incorporated, they would have rendered the working of these minerals more practicable. On my own property, I have a small seam of barytes, and also some copper and lead. The barytes is a very valuable mineral, and is used in the production of paint. I agreed some three years ago to the granting of another lease for the working of this mineral. This working was first used in the 1914 war, when the mineral rendered a very useful service, but after that war the working fell into disuse. As a result of the enterprise-of very small capitalists, the mine is working again, and producing very good results. I have let it at a nominal lease, but now that the Government are refusing to accept this Amendment these unfortunate people may be mulcted very considerably indeed. I should not have thought that that kind of person was one


which the Under-Secretary wished to harm in any way. I thought he showed a glimmer of what might be done when he insisted that the kind of minerals which might be affected by this Amendment were found only in small seams.
After all, long before town and country planning was ever thought of, the Phoenicians, who came from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, and founded the great city of Carthage, braved the stormy, tempestuous, seas to come to this country to bring forth mineral elements. I ask the Under-Secretary to cast his mind back over the 25 centuries which have divided us from that period, and realise the development of minerals which has taken place. If he does he will see that there is great substance in this Amendment, and in the point of view which we put forward. So far from doing anything to promote the best interests of Scotland, and small capitalists, the hon. Gentleman will be laying an additional burden upon them which they will find it hard to sustain. I know that as a Socialist he is not particularly concerned with the welfare of the individual, but I hope he will realise that by laying this handicap on the private enterprise and initiative of those who work these minerals he will not be acting in the best interests of Scotland as a whole. I hope he will reflect on this, and, even now, see his way to accept the Amendment.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I want to ask the House to disagree with the hon. Gentleman in disagreeing with the Lords Amendment, and I do so on a number of specific grounds. As has been said, it is clear that for three years those who own or lease properties will be exempted, but it is about the period after that that we are anxious. The specific grounds on which I ask the House to agree with this Amendment are these: First, because the figure of £300 million will already be inadequate without burdening it with compensation in respect of minerals. A great deal of discussion took place on the earlier stages of this Bill on this matter, and it is clear that it is largely a hit or miss affair, even when some sort of assessment of mineral values has been made. The Minister has stated elsewhere that no real assessment has been made of what these mineral capital values might amount to and, consequently, the hit or miss character of this

figure of £300 million has become much greater. This Amendment, which clears up the situation, and takes this large area of mineral compensation out of the Bill, would be an advantage.
The second reason is because the Uthwatt Report recommended that this should be so. They recommended that minerals which were in a different category should be treated separately. That is what we have been advocating throughout. I oppose it because I think it is substantiated that there shall be no compensation whatever for unproved mineral rights, that is to say, which have not been tested, and the delimitation of which cannot be clearly shown. There might be a good argument in that if there was not a great illogicality in it, namely, that Death Duties have been paid on that same land in respect of hidden mineral rights. The Government cannot have their cake and eat it in this way——

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Willis: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman arguing that Death Duties have been paid in respect of something about which no one knows anything at all?

Colonel Hutchison: Yes, I am. In the past, the value of these hidden mineral rights was calculated when Death Duties were paid. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That is the reason why I suggest that these mineral rights should be taken out of the Bill, as the Amendment proposes. The third reason is because the cost of the development rights has to fall on the operator. The operator who extracts fuller's earth, iron ore, or china clay will have to bear the increased cost, which is nearly the equivalent of extra taxation. I understand that the Minister suggested that this matter would be put right by a variation in the terms of the lease or contract of the operator, in such a way that the cost would eventually fall on the owner. That is the intention, but there is no definition of how that is to be brought about, whether 100 per cent. of this development cost will be transferred or some will be left to the operator. Here, again, the matter is clouded with obscurity.
Finally, I support the Amendment because the Clause states that the whole thing is to be subject to adaptations and


modifications by regulation. Here we are discussing something which, by the sweet will of the Minister, may be adapted and modified. All that we decide is reasonable can be changed. This Amendment treats the matter in a logical and satisfactory way, and I urge the House to support it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The matter we are discussing has been discussed up and down Scotland and, indeed, in the island of Great Britain for a very long time. What we object to, primarily, is that by a side wind, in a Subsection in the Bill, the Government are dealing with a subject which certainly demands its own treatment. There is nothing new about the nationalisation of mineral deposits of one kind or another. It was not a Labour Government that nationalised coal. We nationalised coal. It is true that the Socialists have nationalised access to it, but it was our Government that nationalised coal. We investigated the matter, worked out a scheme, and carried through the nationalisation of the great coal deposits in this country. So we know something about it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are simply amateurs at this. They come along with these ideas of theirs and mix them up in a Bill which has a different set of fundamental conceptions altogether. This is a Bill allowing a Central Land Board to charge an amount because of betterment of the land. But does anyone say that there is betterment of the land when we extract from it some mineral or other deposit? We worsen the land.
The Joint Under-Secretary, like myself, is a native of the West of Scotland, and I must say, quite literally, that any one who has seen the industrial country of Lanarkshire has seen a country which has been ruined by this process of so called betterment. They have taken the soil up which has been underground for 300 million years and piled it in great "bings" up and down the land. Does anyone say that that is in accordance with the principles that this Bill is designed to discuss—the principles of building towns and cities and developing beauty of one kind or another. The two things have no relationship to each other. This is not Tory prejudice against nationalisation of minerals. As I have said, we did it. We carried through by far

the greatest operation in that respect. No one can say that we were prejudiced in the matter. But I say that we approached it in a proper way and brought in special legislation to deal with it.

Mr. William Ross: When is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman coming back to the Lords Amendment?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: One Deputy-Speaker, if I may say so, is quite enough in this House, and what I was saying is very closely germane to the subject we are discussing. I was dealing with the proposals in this Amendment. The proposal here is to take the minerals out of the Bill. I am saying that the minerals ought not to be in the Bill. Could anything be more germane to the discussion we are now having than that argument? I am willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman, if he wishes, on this argument which I am suggesting to the House. Minerals are in the Bill; minerals ought not to be in the Bill. The Amendment takes minerals out the Bill; we propose to support the Amendment.
I wish to say quite clearly that the proposal which the Joint Under-Secretary has just commended to the House of maintaining this jumble, this mixture, this incoherent business of trying to deal with worsening and betterment in the same Bill, will lead him into greater difficulties and trouble as time goes on. He is trying to handle it by charging no fee for the first three years. Then the charge comes back, sooner or later, on to the people who are extracting these minerals. The synthetic person who is going to make that charge is this absentee synthetic landlord in London, which we have set up, and against whom an appeal has just been refused by the House on the demand of the Joint Under-Secretary.

Mr. Willis: What is the difference between paying a development charge to a Land Board in London and paying a royalty to the mineral owner?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No doubt the hon. Gentleman has heard the definition of a Board as a thing that has neither a soul to be saved nor a body to be kicked. There is a deal of difference in dealing with the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), who has both of these things, as against a shadowy figure in London.

Mr. Willis: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is dodging the issue. He has suggested that this makes a difference to the operator. My question is what is the difference between paying a development charge to a Land Board and paying a royalty to a mineral owner?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am not dodging the issue. I say that negotiating with the hon. Member for Galloway is a very different matter. He has the right to give or refuse his permission, and that is very different from dealing with a Board in London behind whom stands the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer stands——

Mr. Willis: The right hon. Member is responsible to the House of Commons.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Believe me, I have had some of this. I have been this person in question. Responsibility to the House is to the hardest master one can possibly get. Behind it stands the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and behind the Comptroller and Auditor-General stands the Public Accounts Committee. I remember very well—although it is an analogy which I can only mention and do not wish to develop—when Regent Street was being redeveloped. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) is not here but he complained often enough to me. When I was the rack-rent landlord, I blushed in shame at the way I was treating my tenants. I had to screw every penny out of them because behind me was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee, which would have dropped on me like a hundredweight of bricks if I had been shown as giving undue preference to any one by letting them off a single penny of charge. It will not be a good day for those interested in these problems if we bring these things under the monopoly of the Central Land Board

Mr. Gallacher: Why did not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say, "I refuse to screw the tenant, and if you force me to screw the tenant, I will throw up the job?"

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member ought to know better than that. One cannot

do that. One is there to carry on the King's Government and carry out the conditions which the King's Government had laid down. It would make no difference to the wretched tenant who is in charge. The person fundamentally in charge is the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He demands that every penny should be screwed out of the tenant, because he says that that is the law of the land, and the person in charge is there to carry it out.

Mr. Gallacher: Injustice cannot be justified.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member in suggesting that justice consists in giving away public money and injustice is retaining it, is developing a very dangerous set of arguments. When one is a public man, justice demands that he shall get the last penny out of the public for the Department or the enterprise of which he is in charge. When the hon. Gentleman is in a position of responsibility, he will learn the sad lesson which the Joint Under-Secretaries are learning now about the hard way in which a public man has to behave. Many a time his heart would be willing to be generous and to make concessions. But he knows that he cannot get it through his Department and his Accounting Officer, and, therefore, he cannot make any concession. The private individual can make a concession and the Central Land Board will not be able to do so.
Furthermore, the Central Land Board is a monopoly. If one does not like the hon. Member for Galloway, one can develop some other deposit on some one else's land. This new owner has all the deposits in Scotland, and there is no opportunity of going to some one else to get development. If the Government wish to take this step let them do it. But let their legislation be addressed towards that end and particularly to ways which will deal with the question of worsening, which is one of the big questions in mineral development—the restoration of the land out of which the minerals or deposits of one kind or another have been extracted. In short, we say that the analogy which the Joint Under-Secretary brought before us is false, that the grounds upon which he is proceeding in this Bill are misleading, and the results which he hopes to get for them, namely an improve-


ment in the condition of the people of Scotland will not be accomplished. For these reasons we disagree with him in attempting to exclude this Amendment from the Bill.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 97.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to [Several with Special Entries].

Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Commander Galbraith, Mr. Malcolm MacMillan, Mr. Rankin, Mr. J. S. C. Reid and Mr. Buchanan to be the Members of the Committee; three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Buchanan.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — FATS, CHEESE AND TEA (RATIONING) ORDER.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move:
That the Fats, Cheese and Tea (Rationing) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 1478), dated nth July, 1947, a copy of which was presented on 17th July, be annulled.
The Order is comparatively long, consisting of some six pages. I desire to raise a short but important point concerning a provision within the Order which affects the recently announced reduction in the tea ration. That is effected, as I understand the matter, by paragraph 4, which fixes the quantity of rationed foods which are permitted, and when it is read together with the schedule the net effect is to bring about a reduction in the tea ration. I would point out at this stage that both the Minister of Food and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food have been notified that I intend to raise this matter. I have been in touch with both of them, but neither of them is here. That absence will inevitably prolong the proceedings upon this Motion. I hoped that it might be possible to get from one of those Ministers an answer to a simple question which, if satisfactorily answered, would restrict the length of the Debate, a result which I apprehend would not be unwelcome to the House.
In the absence of those Ministers, for whatever reason it may be, I am not unhopeful of obtaining from the Government—[Interruption]. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry has just come in. She was notified of the point which I propose to raise concerning the restriction of the tea ration. I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends will raise other points on this Order but the particular point of the tea ration is that about which the Parliamentary Secretary and her Ministry have been notified.
The matter arises in this way. On 14th July, the Minister of Food made a statement announcing this reduction, which is implemented by the Order under discussion. It will be fair to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman if I quote the reasons which he gave, as given in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Minister said:
The House will recollect that on 3rd April I warned hon. Members that, mainly owing to a dock strike in Calcutta, our stocks of tea were decreasing. The Calcutta strike ended after twelve weeks on 3rd May, but

a subsequent strike in Colombo which lasted four weeks and ended on 20th June meant that for a whole month no shipments of tea from Ceylon were possible.
The Ministry loyally assisted by the trade, have done everything humanly possible to maintain our supplies, but these two consecutive interruptions in shipments have now reduced our stocks to a point at which we must take action in order to safeguard orderly distribution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1947; Vol. 440, c. 27.]
The right hon. Gentleman went on to explain to the House the system under which the tea ration has been worked for some time; that is to say, whereas in one rationing period of four weeks the ration has been two ounces, in each alternate period it has been three ounces, per week. What the right hon. Gentleman went on to say was that as the result of these strikes the tea ration for the current rationing period—from 20th July to 16th August—which should have been three ounces under the alternate system, would be two ounces, and that it might well be that the next period but one—the September period—would also show a similar reduction. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he hoped that in the period after that—the November period—when it should also be three, it might be possible to reach that.
It is quite clear from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the reason for this reduction in the tea ration, was not, if I may quote the Ministry's familiar phrase, an overall shortage of supplies, nor was it a currency question. It was purely a difficulty arising from two particular strikes which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. That is perfectly clear from his statement, and I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that or not. But, taking the right hon. Gentleman's statement at its face value, the only problem which had arisen was the difficulty in effecting shipments owing to dock strikes at two Eastern ports.
That may well be a valid reason for the reduction during the current period—owing to the policy of the Ministry in not telling the House about stocks, it is quite impossible for hon. Members either to maintain or dispute that—but the point I desire to press tonight—it is the main point of this Motion—is this. If the real reason for this most unwelcome reduction in the tea ration is a delay in shipments owing to strikes, is it the intention of the


Ministry of Food at a later stage—and, if so, at what later stage—to give the people of this country an additional ration of tea to compensate them for what they have lost? If the tea is there, and there is no reason from the Minister's statement to suspect that it is not; if there is no difficulty of currency, and no such suggestion was made in the Minister's statement; if it is purely a transport difficulty due to strikes, then there is no valid reason why at some later date, an extra issue of tea should not be made available to make up to the people for the four ounces which they lose during the current rationing period and also for the four ounces which they seem likely to lose during the September rationing period.
I therefore say to the Parliamentary Secretary that if' she is in a position tonight when she comes to that Box to say, "We appreciate that the people have lost a substantial part of a valued ration but that ration is available in the world and we will at such and such a date make it available by way of an extra ration"—if the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to do in connection with tea what she did this spring in connection with sweets—so far as I am concerned I should be perfectly satisfied and the object of this Motion will have been attained in obtaining that definite and welcome statement. If, however, the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to do that, then the matter becomes more serious because, if the only reason for this cut is that which the Minister gave of strikes, then there is no logical reason whatsoever why this amount should not be made up. If the Parliamentary Secretary is not in a position to say that it will be made up, then we are left inevitably with the suspicion that there must be some other reason, hitherto unstated, for that reduction. Therefore, if the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared tonight to tell the House that at a particular date this amount will be made up, I hope she will be able to explain the reason for the cut, and also the misleading nature of the Minister's statement.
I am sure the House appreciates that this is a matter of considerable concern to many people outside who find the existing tea ration extremely small. It is a comfort to a large section of the population to be able to get a cup of tea, and for that reason we are entitled in this House to have

full and frank explanations from the Minister of Food when a cut of this nature is imposed. I do not want to weary the House, but perhaps I might repeat the one point on which I desire an answer: will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House that the amount lost through these cuts is to be made up, and if so, when? If, on the other hand, she is not to tell us that, can she explain why a strike in these two ports should cause not merely a delay, but an overall loss of tea? I do not think one is being unreasonable in suggesting that the Parliamentary-Secretary should be able tonight to say when this cut can be made up. After all, the latter of the two strikes mentioned came to an end on 20th June. That is some weeks ago, and it must be possible for the Ministry of Food, with all its resources, to have by now some idea of the position as to shipments. It must, at any rate, know whether shipping space has been arranged and when consignments are coming forward. As far as I am concerned, I shall be satisfied if the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us that this will be made up and when, but if not, then we are entitled to a satisfactory explanation of why not.

8.27 p.m.

Lord William Scott: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend has put his case so clearly that there is little left for me to add but there is one special point I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. During the last few years we have seen many beverages in this country alter in respect of their proof or gravity, and we must accept the fact that, for adults, tea is one of the most important beverages here. When the hon. Lady gives her explanation of the reduction of the amount allowed to individuals compared with what they were used to in the past, I would like to hear whether it is the intention of the Government that the gravity, proof, or however the density of tea in the pot or cup is measured, shall be reduced from what we have been used to. Of course, I am well aware that some of us take tea thicker than others, but I notice that on page 4 of this S.R. & O. it is noted in paragraph 13 that the correct ration for 280 hot beverages is reckoned as one lb.—in other words, I suppose we can anticipate that 14 largecups of tea go to one ounce. I would like to know whether that is the new modern rate, or the established rate


accepted over a period of years in the old days before the various shortages inflicted themselves, or were inflicted, upon the British public?

8.30 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I only intervene for a moment or two for two purposes. In the first place, after the extremely detailed statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) I think the Parliamentary Secretary must give a definite answer now in regard to tea, and I hope very much that she is in a position to do so. I think the case there has been so amply demonstrated that I need add nothing to it.
But there is another matter to which I want to refer. This Order continues the existing level for a further year in regard to fats and cheese, as well as reducing the ration of tea. I want to ask the hon. Lady why we are continuing the existing fat ration, because I see in a document issued by the Central Office of Information quite recently this sentence:
If we could export to Argentina only one quarter of the coal we sent there in 1936, the British housewife would no longer have to contend with the shortage of fats.
I take it that the Central Office of Information makes accurate statements, and that the Ministry of Food must, therefore, have been consulted before that statement was made. That statement plainly means, if it means anything at all, that there are fats in the Argentine, which, if we were able to give Argentina the right goods in exchange, we could get in this country, and if we could get them we could increase the ration. This document says:
the British housewife would no longer have to contend with a shortage of fats.
—if we could find the right way of dealing with the Argentine. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has a copy of this document? It is called "Work or Want, Matters of Fact No. 2, Britain's Economic Position," and is issued by the Central Office of Information for His Majesty's Government. I can find no other sentence which in any way qualifies that particular sentence, which must have been prepared after consultation with the hon. Lady. I ask her, therefore, is it the case—it must be because the Central

Office of Information says so, but it should be confirmed in this House—that if we could get the Argentine people to give us the fats in exchange for the right goods—coal is suggested—British housewives would no longer have to contend with the shortage. If so, it destroys completely the idea of the world shortage, and means that the Ministry are not able to do a deal for the goods waiting for us in the Argentine, and that these goods are not under the allocation of the I.E.F.C., but are waiting for us. That is what the Central Office of Information has said, and I hope the hon. Lady will be able to clear up the matter.

8.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I feel that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who moved this Motion, did so in a rather lighthearted fashion, without giving due attention to all those events which have led up to the imposition of this cut. My right hon. Friend explained to the House in some detail what the world position is so far as tea and other commodities are concerned. The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) has raised the question of fats. There may be oils in different parts of the world, but there is no method known to any country as to how to extract those oils. If there was not a world shortage of oils my Department would not have embarked on this scheme for the planting of groundnuts in East Africa. We hope, as a result of that scheme, to acquire a large amount of fats in the future, but for the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead to say that the oil is waiting for us in the Argentine is quite frivolous.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I did not say so. It was the Government.

Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the oil was there, and that my Department was apparently not using its powers to the full to acquire it. I can assure him, as has been said at this Box time after time, that in every exporting country in the world we have business men, who are there to secure as much fat and tea and every one of those commodities dealt with by my Department as possible, and we are doing that today. For the right hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that


there is not a world shortage of these things is quite wrong. It has been proved that there is.
I will explain to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames that there is a world shortage of tea. I would not be so foolish as to stand at this Box and commit my Department to restoring the ration, and restoring it in such a manner (hat the people who have suffered by this cut will feel that they have been adequately compensated. He reminds me, quite rightly, about when I announced the cut in the sweet ration, and the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me whether, when we restored the sweet ration, we would compensate those people who had lost by the cut. One cannot compare the cutting of the sweet ration with the cutting of the tea ration. All that the sweet factories had to do was to increase production, but once a shipload of tea is lost it is difficult to replace, because that ship may have been used for other freight. We can only hope that we shall be able to get more ships in order to increase imports. I cannot today commit myself to promising the people of this country that they will be compensated later.
So far as the tea cut is concerned, I would remind hon. Members opposite that between 1940 and 1945 the people of this country enjoyed a two-ounce ration of tea. In 1945, that ration was increased to 2½ oz. I am told that the Caretaker Government were warned that it might be that the Department could only maintain that 2½ oz. ration until April, 1947. I think that hon. Members opposite will agree with me that the experts in my Department were not far wrong in their prophecy. The date they told the Caretaker Government was April, 1947; we carried on for a month or two longer, and had recently had to cut the tea ration to two ounces. In spite of that warning, the tea ration was increased to 2½ oz. before the General Election.
Between 1940 and 1945 we were able to build up a large stock of tea. The United Kingdom quota was 75 per cent. of our prewar imports, and our stocks were quite sound, but after the increase of the ration to 2½ ozs. our outgoings exceeded supplies. From 1940 to March, 1947, the United Kingdom secured its

quota through the Combined Food Board and its successor, the International Emergency Food Council. Under this scheme', this country was appointed the sole agent for obtaining the exportable surpluses from India, Ceylon and East Africa. As the House well knows, some months ago the Government of India informed my Department that they were no longer prepared to enter into further bulk purchase arrangements after March, 1947. I confess that this information was disturbing. We entered into protracted negotiations with the Government of India and we obtained permission to enter into contracts with producers for teas manufactured during 1947 for delivery in 1948. As similar arrangements had been made already in Ceylon, we felt that the Ministry's buying programme was substantially covered and that the two and a half ounce ration could be maintained.
I would remind hon. Gentlemen who raised this matter that the world's tea supply position still favours the seller. This position may continue until the end of 1948. The world's exportable surplus of tea falls short of the world's consumer demands by about 120 million lbs. There are other countries who were large exporters of tea but, unfortunately, supplies are not yet available. For example, before the Japanese invasion of the Netherlands East Indies, considerable quantities of tea were exported from Indonesia. As hon. Members know, that market is closed today. As I have already said, before 31st March, 1947, tea was allocated to this country by the Combined Food Board and later by the International Emergency Food Council. This arrangement came to an end on 31st March.
On 3rd April my right hon. Friend came to this House and informed hon. Members that it might not be possible to maintain the ration. There is no question of this House not having been informed and warned. They were warned in 1945 and they were warned again last April that the ration might not be maintained. But, of course, we hoped that in view of the contracts which we had entered into, the ration might be maintained. Unfortunately, two strikes intervened. There was a strike in Calcutta which lasted 12 weeks during which time no tea left the port. That was followed by a strike in Colombo which lasted four weeks.
Hon. Members will agree that this delay happened at a very crucial time. What have we done? We have pressed producers to get their tea to the ports as soon as possible. Shippers have been asked to make freight available. We are watching very closely the labour position in Calcutta and Colombo. I am very sorry to tell the House that the position is unsettled. Only recently, since the strike in Colombo, another strike was averted. I have no need to remind the House that there are communal differences in India today which make our difficulties even worse. There is no question of our not being alive to the serious position. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames need not remind me of the needs of the housewife. I am fully aware of them. They are the tea drinkers of the country. I can assure them that when the position improves, when greater supplies are available, we shall increase the ration.

Lord William Scott: Before the hon. Lady sits down, can she answer the specific point whether one pound of tea to 280 beverages—whatever that means—is the old established practice?

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Member visits any cafe in the vicinity of this House, he will be quite satisfied that it is possible to make an acceptable cup of tea by using that quantity of tea.

Sir Ralph Glyn: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question? Why was it that a ship left Colombo in ballast of sand and was refused permission to load tea in the first week of this month?

Dr. Summerskill: I could not answer that question without notice, but if the hon. Gentleman will give me all the details, I will look into it.

Sir R. Glyn: But I have given notice. I have put a Question on the Order Paper, and have had no reply for some time.

Dr. Summerskill: I can only suggest that inquiries have been made and that we have not been satisfied with the result.

8.46 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I do not think the hon. Lady has given us an answer that we can regard as in the least satisfactory. It is one of the most

confused statements of the many confused statements that have been made on behalf of her Ministry. She started off, to my great surprise, by criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) for having raised the matter in a light-hearted fashion. My hon. Friend made a perfectly plain statement of the facts, and proceeded to ask a number of questions, and I do not understand how the hon. Lady could take any exception whatsoever to the manner in which this important question was raised by him. Then she jerked off to refer to what had been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), who had raised a question about getting fats now from Argentina. The hon. Lady answered him by talking about getting fats at some future time from East Africa, and, in fact, she did not deal with this point at all. The question whether or not the East African scheme is successful in ultimately enabling us to get fats and oils for the consumers of this country is entirely disconnected from the problem of obtaining fats from Argentina now, and the hon. Lady did not attempt to deal with that question.

On the question of tea, she managed to tangle up—and I could only think that she was rather anxious to avoid a clear-cut issue in this matter—two questions, the question of an alleged world shortage of tea, and the consequences of the dock strikes at Calcutta and Colombo. I do not think these two elements are necessarily connected. At any rate, whether they are connected or not, on 14th July the Minister of Food attributed this situation entirely to the dock strikes at Calcutta and Colombo. If, in fact, they are to be attributed partly to these strikes and partly to the shortage, why did not the right hon. Gentleman say so? In fact, he thought fit to rest his explanation on the strikes at Calcutta and Colombo. I want to know now whether it is sought to amend that explanation. If the Minister does seek to amend his explanation, what has occurred between 14th July and the present date to require such an amendment, because the hon. lady was at pains to tell us that the House has been consistently warned for many months past about the world shortage of tea and the difficult prospect that lay ahead?

Therefore, I cannot see that any aggravation has taken place in the world shortage since 14th July, and it is very difficult to understand why the Minister of Food made no reference to it on 14th July, when he relied entirely for his explanation on the consequences of these dock strikes in Calcutta and Colombo. A clear issue has been put before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. We are entitled to have an equally clear answer from the Parliamentary Secretary, but we have not had it. She has merely sought to confuse the consequences of the strikes mentioned by the Minister of Food with the more general question of a world shortage.

Even if the world shortage in tea is a serious problem, none the less, as far as I can see, there can be no reason why the tea held up at Calcutta and Colombo should not be speedily shipped to this country, at least to provide some alleviation of the consequence of the world shortage. Tea is a fairly easy cargo to handle. In proportion to its immense value to the community in this country, it does not require a great amount of shipping space. It is not a perishable commodity, and it is about as easy a cargo to deal with as the Ministry of Food could have. Therefore, why cannot we have the assurance for which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames asked, that this tea which has been held up in Calcutta and Colombo should be shipped at an early date, in order to alleviate, to some extent, the shortage from which people in this country are now suffering?

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Lady chided my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) for treating this subject lightheartedly. In fact, of course, as any hon. Member in the House realises, he dealt with it completely, effectively and lightly. If we were all called upon to deal as heavily and as gloomily with the failures of the present Administration at this eleventh hour—according to their own Lord President the sands are running out—as we should, then the national morale which we want to sustain would suffer a very severe setback.
I can assure the hon. Lady that even if she charges—and unjustly—that any of

us are dealing with the matter light-heartedly, no housewife in the country is dealing with it lightheartedly. Everybody is remembering, in regard to these proposals, that two years and one month ago, almost to the day, we were exhorted by her colleague, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport, to vote Labour, and to prevent any lowering of the standard of life through reduced rations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That cheer may give some temporary comfort tonight to hon. Members opposite, but it will be remembered when settling day comes at a very early date. In this particular Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Order, we have, indeed, a partial answer to the vain boast made by the right hon. Gentleman then, though he, in common with many other people, had had some experience of responsible government even before the Election.
Fats, cheese, and now, through this Order, tea, are to be less for millions of our fellow citizens than they were at certain moments at the height of the U-boat campaign, when every convoy was being attacked on the Seven Seas, and when we were fighting for our life. I do not believe that anybody minds privations, or will fail to face them resolutely, if they feel that they are inevitable, and come from playing our part as a civilised nation in seeing that other countries get their fair share, given good government and prudent housekeeping. But nobody feels that the present set of proposals, to which the hon. Lady has so lightheartedly lent her support tonight, falls into that category.
Are these proposals inevitable? Are they the result of good planning by a Government which, we were told, would give us the planning without which we could not lead our postwar life? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hill-head (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) has referred to an official Government publication. We are all asked—Government and Opposition alike—to go into the factories and the fields of England and read out publications of this kind. From time to time, appeals are made, even by the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary that we should act as a Council of State and all try to help England in her emergency, and these are the materials which we are given: "Britain's Economic Position," prepared by the Central Office of Information—not a Government publication, nor an Opposi


tion publication, but a fact finding objective study. This is the material on which the Government are asking for the Dunkirk spirit from all of us, in the temporary cessation of the other battle which some of the hon. Lady's colleagues are now fighting. What do we find in this paper?
If we could export to Argentina only one-quarter of the coal we sent there in 193b, the British housewife would no longer have to contend with the shortage of fats.
That suggests that there is no world shortage of fats, that we can get some if we can export something in return. How then can the hon. Lady ride away on the argument that there is a world shortage of fats, and that whatever we do, or whatever the world may do, we cannot meet the shortage of fats?
Again, only recently, on 14th July, when dealing with the tea ration and the proposed tea cut, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food attributed that cut in tea solely to the strikes in Calcutta. If that is so, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Cold-field (Sir J. Mellor), the tea must be there. If it was only the strikes which held up the tea, the tea must be available Why cannot it be delivered? Our citizens will accept anything if they feel that it is inevitable, and if they feel there is good government and good planning behind their privations. But now they are becoming, in a rapidly increasing number, wedded to the idea that the Government are using non-existent world shortages and strikes as an excuse for their own bungling and incompetence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames asked two specific questions. Many of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who now find themselves in what is, no doubt, often unwelcome authority, got a great deal of their reputation by asking questions. It is true they asked them at the height of the war when to disclose the answer would have harmed our Armed Forces. Now, in peace time, we ask them, and we are entitled to an answer. My hon. Friend asked whether the amount of tea would be made up, and if so when. To that question we are entitled to an answer. He also asked, if it is not going to be made up, why should a strike, or these two strikes, cause delay and, in addition, an overall loss to the hard taxed British

housewife in her tea resources. We are entitled to answers to these questions, and it is treating the House of Commons in an extremely light-hearted way to deny us the answer.
The sands are running out. Those are not my words; they are the words of the Lord President of the Council. The hon. Lady said, in regard to tea, that this is now a sellers' market, and that any tea producer can sell what he likes. It is also a sellers' market in regard to exports, but despite that fact, the gap between our exports and imports is widening tragically every day. It will soon cease to be a sellers' market in tea, and that may give us temporary aid, but it will also soon cease to be a sellers' market in regard to our exports, and when that happens, the full danger of the impending Nemesis which is approaching this country will be apparent to all citizens. This is only one comparatively small illustration, but it touches the homes of our people. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite show incompetence in the small things, it is not unreasonable to assume that they will do likewise in the big things. We have no alternative but to vote in favour of the Prayer.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Before the House comes to a decision, I should like to say one personal thing in reply to the hon. Lady, the Parliamentary Secretary. She was good enough to open her observations by suggesting that I raised this matter in a light-hearted manner. If she is unable to distinguish between moderation in argument and light-heartedness, let me tell her that neither I nor my hon. and right hon. Friends regard the deprivations her Government are imposing on the British people with anything but horror and repugnance. But I will confess to having made one mistake, for which I apologise to the House. I made the mistake of believing that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food, when he made his statement on 14th July to which I referred, was giving an accurate picture of the position to the House. As that explanation has now been thrown overboard, I shall not make the mistake of believing him again.

Question put,
That the Fats, Cheese and Tea (Rationing) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 1478), dated nth July, 1947, a copy of which was presented on I7th July, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 260.

Division No. 368.]
AYES.
[8.0 p.m.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Leslie, J. R.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Levy, B. W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Alpass, J. H.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Ewart, R.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Anderson, P. (Whitehaven)
Fairhurst, F.
Logan, D. G.


Attewell, H. C.
Farthing, W. J.
Longden, F.


Awbery, S. S.
Fernyhough, E.
Lyne, A. W.


Ayles, W. H.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McAdam, W.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Follick, M.
McAllister, G.


Baird, J.
Foot, M. M.
McEntee, V. La T.


Balfour, A.
Foster, W. (Wigan)
McGhee, H G.


Barstow, P. G.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McGovern, J.


Barton, C.
Gaitskell, H T. N.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Battley, J. R.
Gallacher, W.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McLeavy, F


Bellenger, Rt. Hon F J.
Gibbins, J.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Benson, G.
Gibson, C. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Berry, H.
Gilzean, A.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mann Mrs. J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Goodrich, H E.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Binns, J.
Gordon-Walker, P. C
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Blenkinsop, A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon A. (Wakefield)
Marples, A. E.


Blyton, W. R.
Grenfell, D. R.
Marsden, Capt. A.


Boardman, H.
Grey, C. F.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Bowden. Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Grierson, E.
Mathers, G


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Medland, H. M


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mellish, R. J.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Messer, F.


Bramall, E. A.
Gunter, R. J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Guy, W. H.
Mikardo, Ian


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mitchison, G. R.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.
Monslow, W.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Moody, A S


Buchanan, G.
Hardy, E. A.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Burden, T. W.
Harrison, J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W)


Burke, W. A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (L'wish'm, E.)


Carmichael, James
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Mort, D. L


Chamberlain, R. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Moyle, A.


Chater, D.
Hicks, G.
Mulvey, A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hobson, C. R
Nally, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Holman, P.
Naylor, T. E


Cobb, F. A.
House, G.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Cooks, F. S
Hoy, J.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Coldrick, W.
Hubbard, T.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Collick, P.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Oldfield, W. H.


Collindridge, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Oliver, G. H.


Collins, V. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, M.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Paget, R. T.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Corvedale, Viscount
Irving, W. J.
Parkin, B. T.


Cove, W. G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pearson, A.


Crawley, A.
Jay, D. P. T.
Peart, Thomas F


Crossman, R. H. S
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Plaits-Mills, J. F. F.


Cunningham, P.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, J H (Bolton)
Price, M. Philips


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S W.)

Pritt, D. N.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Keenan, W.
Proctor, W. T.


Davies, S. O. (Methyr)
Kendall, W. D.
Pryde, D. J.


Deer, G.
Kenyon, C.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


de Freitas, Geoffroy
Key, C. W.
Ranger, J.


Diamond, J.
King, E. M
Rankin, J.


Dobbie, W.
Kinley, J.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Dodds, N N.
Kirby, B. V.
Reeves, J.


Donovan, T.
Kirkwood, D.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Driberg, T E. N.
Lavers, S.
Rhodes, H.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Durbin, E. F. M.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Leonard, W.
Royle, C.




Scollan, T.
Stephen, C.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Scott-Elliot, W
Stross, Dr. B.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Segal, Dr. S.
Summerskill, Dr Edith
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Swingler, S.
Wilcook, Group-Capt. C A. B


Sharp, Granville
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilkes, L


Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Shinwell Rt. Hon. E
Thomas, D. E, (Aberdare)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Shurmer, P.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Thurtle, Ernest
Willis, E.


Simmons, C. J.
Tiffany, S.
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Skeffington, A. M.
Titterington, M. F.
Wilson, J. H.


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Tolley, L.
Wise, Major F. J


Skinnard, F. W.
Usborne, Henry
Woodburn, A


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Wyatt, W.


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Viant, S. P.
Yates, V. F.


Snow, Capt. J. W.
Wallace, G D (Chislehurst)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Solley, L. J.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Sorenson, R. W
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Zilliacus, K.


Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Weitzman, D



Sparks, J. A.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stamford, W
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Steele, T.
West, D. G.
Mr. Popplewell.




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Baldwin, A. E.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Pickthorn, K.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Pitman, I. J.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hurd, A.
Prescott, Stanley


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Raikes, H. V


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Ramsay, Major S.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Rayner, Brig. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Legge-Bourke. Maj. E. A. H
Sanderson, Sir F.


Challen, C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Scott, Lord W


Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)


Cole, T. L.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
McCallum, Maj. D
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)


Digby, S. W.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thomas, J. P. L (Hereford)


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Touche, G. C.


Drayson, G. B
Marples, A. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Drewe, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wadsworth, G.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marshall, S. H (Sutton)
Walker-Smith, D.


Duthie, W. S.
Maude, J. C.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mellor, Sir J
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Fyfe, Rt Hon Sir D. P. M
Molson, A. H. E.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gammans, L. D.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nicholson, G.



Grimston, R. V.
Nield, B. (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Commander Agnew and


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Major Conant.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Division No. 369.]
AYES.
[9.1 p.m


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. RI. Hon. Sir C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Pickthorn, K.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hurd, A
Pitman, I. J.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E


Bullock, Capt. M.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Prescott, Stanley


Challen, C.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Raikes, H. V.


Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.
Langford-Holt, J.
Ramsay, Major S.


Cole, T. L.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Cuthbert, W. N
McCallum, Maj. D.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Digby, S. W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dower, Lt.-Cot. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Touche, G. C.


Drayson, G. B.
Marples, A. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Drewe, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wadsworth, G.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Walker-Smith, D


Duthie, W. S.
Maude, J. C.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mellor, Sir J.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.



Gammans, L. D.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Glyn, Sir R.
Nicholson, G.
Lord William Scott and


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.


Grimston, R. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P





NOES.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.


Allen, A C (Bosworth)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hardy, E. A.


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Harrison, J.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Deer, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Attewell, H. C.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Awbery, S. S.
Diamond, J.
Herbison, Miss M.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Dobbie, W.
Hobson, C. R.


Balfour, A.
Dodds, N. N.
Holman, P.


Barstow, P. G.
Donovan, T.
House, G.


Barton, C.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hoy, J.


Battley, J. R.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hubbard, T.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Durbin, E. F. M.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Benson, G.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)


Binns, J.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Blyton, W. R.
Ewart, R.
Jay, D. P. T.


Boardman, H.
Fairhurst, F.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Bowden. Flg.-Offr. H. W
Farthing, W. J.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Follick, M.
Keenan, W.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Foot, M. M
Kendall, W. D


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Foster, W (Wigan)
Kenyon, C.


Brown, George (Belper)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Kinley, J.


Brown, T. J (Ince)
Gaitskell, H. T N
Kirby, B. V.


Buchanan, G.
Gallacher, W.
Lavers, S.


Burden, T. W.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Burke, W. A.
Gibbins, J
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Gibson, C. W.
Leonard, W.


Cobb, F. A.
Gilzean, A.
Leslie, J. R.


Cocks, F S.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Levy, B. W.


Coldrick, W.
Goodrich, H. E.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Collick, P
Gordon-Walker, P. C
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Collindridge, F
Grenfell, D. R.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Collins, V. J.
Grey, C. F.
Logan, D. G.


Colman, Miss G. M
Grierson, E.
Longden, F


Cook, T. F.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Lyne, A. W.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly)
McAllister, G.


Corlett, Dr. J
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
McEntee, V. La T.


Corvedale, Viscount
Gunter, R. J.
McGhee, H G


Cove, W. G.
Guy, W. H.
McGovern, J.


Crawley, A.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mackay, R W. G (Hull, N. W.)







Maclean, N. (Govan)
Pritt, D. N.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


McLeavy, F.
Proctor, W. T.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Ranger, J
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Rankin, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Mann, Mrs. J.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Thurtle, Ernest


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Reeves, J.
Tiffany, S.


Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Titterington, M. F.


Mathars, G.
Rhodes, H.
Tolley, L.


Medland, H. M
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Usborne, Henry


Mellish, R. J.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Messer, F.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Viant, S. P.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Royle, C
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Mikardo, Ian
Scollan, T.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Mitchison, G. R.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Weitzman, D.


Moody, A. S.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sharp, Granville
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)



Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lawisham, E.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens).
West, D. G.


Mort, D. L
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E
Westwood Rt. Hon J.


Nally, W.
Shurmer, P.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Naylor, T E.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A B


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Simmons, C. J.
Wilkes, L.


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Skeffington, A. M.
Willey, F. T (Sunderland)


Oldfield, W. H
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Williams, D J. (Neath)


Oliver, G. H
Skinnard, F W.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Orbach, M.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Paget, R. T.
Solley, L. J.
Willis, E.


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Sparks, J. A.
Wise, Major F. J


Palmer, A. M. F
Stamford, W.
Woodburn, A


Pargiter, G. A.
Steele, T.
Woods, G. S.


Parkin, B. T
Stephen, C.
Wyatt, W.


Pearson, A.
Strachey, J.
Yates, V. F.


Peart, Thomas F.
Stross, Dr. B.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Platts-Mills, J. F. F
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Zilliacus, K.


Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Swingler, S.



Porter, E. (Warrington)
Sylvester. G. O.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Taylor, H. B.(Mansfield)
Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.


Price, M. Philips
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

ESTIMATES SUB-COMMITTEE (INQUIRY, GERMANY)

Ordered:
That the Select Committee on Estimates have power to appoint a Sub-Committee to visit Germany and to hold sittings for the purpose of hearing evidence from British officials and from representatives of British interests on matters arising out of the Estimate for the Foreign Office (German Section), and the Navy, Army and Air Estimates, so far as they relate to the cost of maintaining British forces in Germany; and that it be an instruction to any Sub-Committee so appointed that they inquire specially into the arrangements for British participation in the economic organisation and administration in Gerfnany.—[Mr. Kirby.]

Orders of the Day — COLONIAL EMPIRE (MANPOWER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Simmons.]

9.12 p.m.

Brigadier Mackeson: There was a certain amount of criticsm in the Press in regard to the attendance in the Debate on the Colonies which recently took place in Committee of Supply, but there were several Members on this side of the House, and, indeed, on the Government side, who were unable to catch the Chairman's eye because the time was so short on that occasion. I think it will be agreed that the time which has been available to discuss colonial affairs has during the past year, been all too short for those who are vitally interested, not only in the affairs of the different Colonies, but in the Colonial Empire as a whole. In passing I should like to mention that it is a pity we have not had an opportunity of discussing the new constitution for Ceylon, to make quite certain that the interests of the Sinhalese minorities are assured, which I believe them to be. I think it is unfortunate that the new constitution for Malta, of which I have some slight knowledge, is not out yet; as far as I am aware, there is only one elected representative of the people at present carrying out his constitutional rights. I agree that the Constitutions for Ceylon and Malta will prove satisfactory, but, nevertheless, I hope that the Government will give time for these major constitutional problems adequately to be discussed.
When we talk about development of the British Commonwealth, it is not always possible to put the facts before the people, possibly owing to the lack of newsprint. I doubt, for instance, whether the people realise that the statement contained in the Blue Paper is true that for many years there will be no surplus of cereals other than perhaps maize, and there is little chance of exporting meat from the Colonial Empire in large quantities. On the other hand, there is a tremendous potential, particularly in connection with the export of groundnuts, fruit, minerals, tea, and many other things. I am making no party point when I say that owing to the war there will be a delay of at least three years, and, in many cases, up to 10 years before we in this country will be

able to receive the benefits of any development schemes that are put into force.
The essential thing we should make clear is that in any plan for the Colonies we are working primarily for the colonial people, and only incidentally for ourselves. In our present economic condition it is very easy for us to get up here, and say what we think we ought to get from the Colonial Empire., Our duty, as Members of Parliament, representing, to some extent, constitutionally, 60 million people in the Empire, is to think primarily of the people in the Colonies, and only incidentally of ourselves. In the Colonial Empire we have an enormous asset which has not been developed over past generations-colonial manpower. I will briefly gloss over the past, but let it be clear that there was a time when the white man exploited the black. In no conditions must that state of affairs return. We must try to raise the standard of living and education of our fellow citizens of the Empire, because, by doing so, I believe that we shall raise our own.
How can colonial manpower, which is very considerable, help this country and mankind as a whole? That is a question I am posing to the Under-Secretary. I do not profess to know the answer to it, but I believe that there are many ways. For instance, by building air bases and ports, and by using our colonial manpower, we can do a great deal. In our present straitened circumstances, I am putting this forward as the main thesis of this brief Debate this evening. I believe that the Cabinet—and I have no information, other than the Press—have had to consider the question of cutting down our Armed Forces. I should like to see them cut down drastically if the situation in the world was happier than it is, but, faced as we are, with our commitments, I am very surprised, as an ex-soldier, why colonial troops have not been considered in relation to this policy.
We had 42,000 troops in the Colonies two days before the beginning of the war. These facts are not secret; they are extracted from official publications, on sale by the Stationery Office. By May, 1945, that number had leaped to the astounding figure of 473,000. Now it is down to 87,800. The figures for the British


Army are quite different. In 1939, we had, excluding India, for which I have not the facts, 185,000 troops. We had in June, 1945, nearly 3,000,000; and we have 854,000 today. The Colonial Army has decreased, in two years, by as five is to one, and the British Army by as three and a half is to one. In other words, the Colonial Army is twice the size it was before the war, whereas the British Army is four times the size it was before the war. It is difficult, after a war, to get recruits in this country, and I think we are losing a great potential source of manpower by not using more African troops. I do not mean that they should be used for occupation. I am thinking on very big lines, and I believe that we should have an Army corps in East Africa and an Army corps in West Africa of about 100,000 each. I believe that would save a great deal of our own manpower. I cannot understand why we have not done that, and, if circumstances change, as they do change after a war, I think we should consider this. I am not putting forward this suggestion purely from a strategic point of view. I believe that Central Africa and South Africa will be the strategic centre of the Empire in a few years' time when rockets increase their range. I believe that if we get the best educated young Englishman—and we have proved that we could get very good young men to go out to India—we could help not only our own manpower, but also the Africans.
I am envisaging a big African army with about three years' minimum service of which the last six months, at least would be served in vocational training—learning the veterinary service, agriculture, methods that should be taken to stop soil erosion, simple sanitation, and things of that kind, and that the man should then go out. He would be fully trained and on reserve for six years and be, broadly speaking, a better citizen if intelligently handled. That is a very sweeping statement, and I do not believe that the Government, or any Government, could easily solve the educational problem in the colonies. We have a tremendous number of teachers to find, and buildings to erect in this country and, goodness knows, how we can expect to find the necessary cadre to increase education abroad. I believe that by taking on the best of these men as volunteers for

three, six or nine years we would be able to make them first-class junior administrators in the Forces and in civil life. I think that a certain proportion of the appointments in the Colonial Service might possibly be reserved for them. The plan is a big one but it is worth thinking about in view of the very serious statement we are expecting to hear on Wednesday. I throw it out as a suggestion. I am quite aware that the hon. Gentleman cannot answer this in detail tonight, but I hope that he will tell me that the Government will consider the matter. This is a place where we can, although we may have hard things to say to hon. Gentlemen at times, put forward constructive suggestions. I would ask the hon. Gentleman in particular to investigate with the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Royal Air Force how far we can take colonial manpower and educate them for mechanical ground jobs on aerodromes. Before long, the African Continent will depend, in my opinion, when we have built sufficient aircraft, very largely on the number of aerodromes it possesses.
There is one question which I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman in which he knows I am particularly interested. That is the question of Maltese emigration. Compared with the millions in Africa, it is a small question, but compared with the Empire it is a big question, because Malta is one of our most developed colonies, and the population there have given as much service to mankind as most islands in the world. When I was there in January—the hon. Gentleman bad been very courteous in answering my letters—there were, I believe, about 10,000 emigrants anxious to leave the country, but the shipping problem was difficult. Of these, some 5,000 want to go to Australia and 5,000 to the United States of America while a few hundred want to come here.
I personally think, without having studied the problem too closely, that the correct place for the Maltese to emigrate to is Australia. The population of the island is 250,000 and it is going up at the rate of 5,000 a year. Naturally there is a feeling of claustrophobia and restriction on a small island, particularly as the expenditure by ourselves and the Americans has gone down. I believe we should make every effort to get the Maltese to Australia, and we should permit a small


number of trained and untrained technicians to come into this country. They could be employed here as fellow citizens with equal rates of pay or allowed to go, as some of them have gone, to places like Kenya. In this connection I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman might investigate the question of getting some Maltese girls to come here to be trained as nurses. I am told that they did yeoman service during the war.
That is all I want to say on this question of colonial manpower. India and Pakistan are Dominions. We want to see Africa eventually brought into the Commonwealth as a self-governing Dominion or Commonwealth or whatever the word may be—we shall no doubt change our words as time goes on. I believe a great contribution can be made by us to the people of the colonies and they can make a great contribution to us. I suggest that in our present shortage of troops we should recruit more soldiers in Africa not for offensive purposes but simply for internal work and as potential reserves to support U.N.O. later on, but at present to support the British way of life. We may also have the idea that in some small way that will help us in the problems which we have to face tomorrow.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I am sure the House is very grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson) for raising this subject this evening, because at any time it is a very important subject, but it is a vital one at the moment with the Debate looming up in front of us tomorrow. This aspect has never been stressed as much as it should have been in the House, mainly because, as the hon. and gallant Member has said, we get few opportunities to discuss colonial problems. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary pays great attention to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech and to the excellent suggestions which he has made this evening.
I should like to take this a stage further and not only deal with Africa but also with the Far East. We have important Colonies there in Malaya, Hong Kong, and Borneo. Before the war, as the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) will bear me out, in all of these territories there were no regular battalions of colonial troops whatsoever. The regular battalions

of troops came either from this country, India or Burma, and that was so not only in regard to the Army but also for the military police. That imposed a considerable burden upon the manpower of this country, which was not difficult in those days because we had a great surplus of manpower for many years in the inter-war period. That no longer applies, and one of the ways in which the Government will have to close the gap is by reducing the size of the Armed Forces.
In so far as the colonial territories are concerned, I suggest that they can only do that by recruiting and employing colonial troops. These troops will in the main be used in their own colonies, but there is the possibility of using them in other colonies as well. For instance, the Sikhs were used in Malaya and Hong Kong before the war. I take it that they will be no longer available. The Burma Rifles were mostly composed of Kachins, Chins and Karens. They were used in Malaya. We could extend that process. We could enlist Malays and Chinese not only for service in Malaya but for service in other colonies as well—for military police or the Armed Forces as the case may be.
One of the reasons in my opinion for the disasters which overtook us in Malaya was the fact that we had not relied in any shape or form upon Forces from the peoples of the country. We had disarmed them and we had not allowed them to bear arms of any description. I remember prosecutions of people for carrying little hatchets no bigger than toffee hammers. They were regarded in the old days as dangerous weapons and, therefore, we had taken from the indigenous people of these various colonial territories any opportunity of becoming proficient in arms. We told them it was a serious criminal offence to bear arms, and when the time came they were not in a position, no matter how much they may have liked to be, to help in expelling the foreign invader. That is a fact, and if the time ever comes again, the people of the particular country must be in a position to help in expelling any invader of their land.
The reasons for that policy lay very largely in the fact that in the past we were an imperial power. We did not want the people of our colonial territories


to be armed. We did not want them to be trained in military formations, because we assumed that they were more likely to fight us than anybody else. Therefore, it was better for us to have our own armies, small though they were, scattered all over the world. That no longer applies. We are no longer an Imperial power. We have taken these people into co-partnership with us. We have told them that our aim is to give them self-government in due course, and in most of these territories and with that hope in view more and more of these territories are becoming self-governing. In very few of them does the old Crown Colony system apply in its entirety. The indigenous people to a larger or a smaller extent are responsible for the defence and other services inside their country.
Thus it is that today there is no reason why the burden of the police and military commitments inside the country should not be borne by the peoples of the particular colony concerned. In this Debate it would be outside the scope of our discussion if I were to go into any of the larger aspects. I hope at some time we will have a Debate on defence policy generally. We are always taking little snippets of it on the Army, Navy, or Air Vote. At the same time, I would like to see a real defence Debate when we could discuss how far the Navy, Armies and Air Forces were necessary and what their role should be in the changed circumstances of today. However, that may not be within the scope and limitations of this Debate, and I will conclude by suggesting that we can make a much greater use of our colonial manpower than we have done in the past. I commend the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe to my Friends on this side of the House.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: While I agree very largely with what has been said by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams), I feel I must correct him on one point of history which occurred when he suggested that the defence of Malaya might have been different if the people in the country had been doled out with arms. We lost Malaya for one reason and for one reason only, and that was because we had lost control of the sea through the disaster at

Pearl Harbour and through the sinking of the "Prince of Wales" and the "Repulse." All the armies in the world would not have made very much difference ultimately to what happened there.
I am very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson) for having raised this question, because I hope he is going to be more successful than I have ever been, which is to get out of the Government some answer as to whether or not they have any policy at all with regard to the future use of colonial manpower. In that connection I am very glad to see the Secretary of State for War present, although he does not seem to be taking much interest in the Debate. However, we are glad to see him, because this is a matter which concerns him and also the Minister of Labour as much as it concerns the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. I asked a question of the Government some months ago, a simple question. I asked the Secretary of State for War—who is still not taking much interest in this Debate—that question, when he was complaining that he was short of men in the Army. I asked him categorically whether he proposed to make any use whatever of that great reservoir of loyal men and first-class soldiers who exist throughout the Colonial Empire.
The sort of answer I got then was a vague reply that the matter was under consideration, or more vaguely still that it was under active consideration—not that I see much difference between the two—and that in due course we should expect some statement of policy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who is to reply tonight will not fob us off with that sort of answer, that the matter is under consideration or active consideration. We are told that the country is short of manpower and that we are short of men in the Army. We may be told before many weeks are past that this country has to reduce its commitments throughout the world. I know that there are many hon. Members opposite who like to think today that we are no longer a first-class Power; in fact, who rejoice to think that we have become a third-class Power. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] It is all very well for an hon. Member to say "Rubbish"—[Interruption.]

Mr. Harold Davies: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Member opposite to accuse Members on this side of the House of lack of patriotism? We do not rejoice, any more than does anybody else, in fact, we do not agree, that this country is a third-class Power.

Mr. Gammans: I am glad to hear such a robust statement from the other side about our national greatness. I only hope that the hon. Member's friends on the Government Front Bench share his views. I am glad to be in agreement with him on that point. There is a feeling abroad throughout the world today that we may have to reduce our commitments abroad, not because we want to do so but because we have not the men in the Armed Forces to carry out those commitments. The idea is that we may have to demobilise men from the Army not because we want to do so but because we need them in our industry.
The point I want the hon. Gentleman to answer is this: When the Government are thinking of the Armed Forces, are they thinking of the men who can be spared from industry from this country, or are they taking a wider view? Are they thinking of the Colonial Empire as a whole? That is not only true of the Armed Forces, but I think it is true also of industry. Hon. Gentlemen have raised the question of men coming from the Colonial Empire to this country to help us. Surely nothing could be more fantastic than that there should be 5,000 or 6,000 unemployed people in Malta and more than that in the West Indies, of men who went out during the war to help the United States in their labour shortage, when we want those people here. They are British subjects. They are keen to help us, and they are capable of doing so.
We want to know whether the Government are thinking of those people in connection with the labour shortage, which exists not only in the Armed Forces, but in industry, nursing and in many other jobs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will really say something on these subjects. None of his honourable co colleagues have said anything on the subject. I do not want to trespass upon what we may be talking about tomorrow, but I am absolutely convinced that we shall never be able to give a decent standard of living again to the people of this country

if we merely think of our resources in terms of the manpower of this island. Only in so far as we think of our resources both in men and material of the whole Empire, can we do that. What always strikes me as so fantastic is that if East and West Africa were joined to this country by a piece of land, even although that piece of land were only a piece of sandy desert, we should think automatically of the problem as a whole, both in regard to resources and also in terms of defence. The United States do that and so do Russia, but merely because we—a great maritime power—are divided by a piece of sea, how fantastic it is that we should treat Empire resources and the resources of this country separately.

Dr. Morgan: We do not.

Mr. Gammans: Only in so far as we are prepared to regard them as one, can we get out of our own troubles and, at the same time, do our duty to the peoples of the Colonial Empire.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: It is such a pity that so much of the good sense very often uttered by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) is destroyed by the double-edged hacksaw of partisanship——

Mr. Gammans: What have I said that is partisan?

Mr. Davies: At one moment during his speech the hon. Member accused hon. Members on this side as though we were rejoicing in the fact that we had manpower difficulties and that we have emerged from a war against Nazism and Fascism weaker than a good many of the highly industrialised countries of the world. Far from that, we believe that had not this Government been in power, the position, would have been economically worse than it is at the moment. As far as manpower is concerned, in the two years after the last war we lost 40 million days through strikes; in two years after this war we have lost only four million days, as a result of the leadership of the Government. But let me get back to the Debate.
I am delighted that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson) raised this issue tonight. It is a serious matter. We want to find manpower wherever we can, and I


agree with both hon. Members opposite that, rather than import foreign labour, I would look in my own colonies, I would look in the various parts of the Commonwealth to see where we have redundant labour, and, if we have it, train it, bring it to this country so that after serving a period of apprenticeship and having helped our productivity and output, that manpower or womanpower could go back to the Colonies and be a nucleus of productivity there. Consequently I believe that the Colonial Office and our Minister of Labour should look more to our Colonial dependancies and to the Commonwealth to help us solve this manpower problem.
Before we can do that, however, there is a general economic plan we have to realise. We have to realise that our own Colonial Empire is also the great source of our tropical oils, greases and fats and that the standard of life of these people is going up. They refuse in South-East Asia to stand on the side lines of Imperialism any longer, and so we have a double problem. As well as expecting these people to produce more basic raw materials in the form of oils, greases and fats, we also want them to produce extra oils, greases and fats for us because of our increasing basic demand for those raw materials. To approach this problem I believe we should use our Army training schemes much more than we have done in the past. I remember that hon. Members on both sides of the House during various Debates on the Army Estimates made concrete suggestions about the use of colonial manpower and about the training of Colonial troops.
I believe from my experience that in this country we often forget what a magnificent job of work the East Africans did in Burma, to mention one group of colonial troops. What did we do? Did we use that well-trained East African corps of manpower, or did we just bring it back to Africa and disperse it willy-nilly without any concrete plan to use it for the best development of Africa? If we have been doing that in the past, this is where our Colonial Office must give itself a jolt and look into the use of this manpower that served in the Forces.
That brings me to something in which I am always interested so far as colonial man-power and woman-power is concerned. I am "all agin" creating the Babu in

these colonial areas, men who are just pushing a pen, who are "neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor good red-herring," who become declassed so far as their own people are concerned and so far as the white people are concerned. This is a slow process. When we attack the tribal customs, I believe it is by some form of labour corps under the Army that we can show them the mistakes of the tribal customs, maintaining the best of those customs without creating pen-pushers all over the Colonies. We must recreate in the Colonies Ruskin's dignity of labour, and that needs a first-class plan of mass education. While I want universities, do not let us begin with universities, but on a lower scale, where we can teach ordinary colonial men and women, who have a fund of common-sense and, in some directions, a richness of knowledge often far beyond that of the white man, to build roads, simple methods of drainage, simple methods of the best use of their cattle and pasture. I know that our Colonial Office is spending millions on this, but are they beginning right at the top or right at the bottom? We ought to create a corps of well-trained people to teach these elementary things about living before we think of the academic things so far as colonial manpower and woman-power is concerned. That was done in Malaya where, as a result of the efforts of research by the Tropical School of Medicine, and Dr. Platt and others, we looked into the cooking recipes of the Malayan peoples. It is in that direction I believe we should look. I am delighted that the hon. and gallant Member took the opportunity this evening to raise this vital matter, because this is the kind of thing that can cement England to its Commonwealth and to the Colonial Empire.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Baker White: I rise to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson), to whom I am sure the House will be grateful for raising this vital matter. I want to deal with only one aspect, the use of African manpower in the Armed Forces. We are faced in terms of Imperial strategy with the problem of finding something to replace the. Indian Army for service abroad in war and perhaps in peace. African manpower is one of our few untapped re


serves. With many African peoples the profession of arms is an honourable one, perhaps the most honourable one that can be followed, and it has been shown by experience in the late war that other Africans make first-class pioneer battalions. Among the African people are some of the finest military men in the world. There are the King's African Rifles, a regiment with a record second to none; the Sudan Defence Force, and the Basutos, who as pioneers served magnificently in the late war.
Africa is a vital link in our Imperial communications, but it is more than that. It is a place with enormous economic possibilities. His Majesty's Government have recognised that, and are developing the groundnuts scheme and others backed by a £100 million loan. But it is no use developing all these great resources, unless we have proper forces to defend them. Side by side with the development of the labour force for economic purposes there must be a proper deployment of the forces for purposes of Imperial defence. I believe it will come to be seen more and more in coming months that there is a potential danger spot in Africa, and that danger spot is Abyssinia. Some very peculiar things are going on there at present, and unless we have proper defences we may find most unpleasant reactions on parts of our African Empire. I urge the Government to press ahead with a scheme for a great African army, which in the years to come can have a record as glorious and as fine as that of the Indian Army.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: There was a time in the development of our African Colonies when it could be said with truth that for every £12, of wealth that we created in that part of the world, we took out £11, and left £1 for the natives. That fact to a large extent contributes to the difficulties that face us in Africa today, and because of that fact it was welcome to me that the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson) raised this subject tonight, and additionally welcome that, in raising it, he should have said that our primary purpose is to raise the scale of living of the Colonial peoples and not our own interests. All of us, whatever our attitude to the first-class or third-class Power argument, welcome that statement from the other side of the House. It betokens a new

attitude to our Colonial Empire, and one which we on this side welcome very much indeed.
The problem which is placed before us tonight is that of the best use we can make of colonial manpower, and in offering my contribution I wish to deal with one phase of that problem. If we are going to use manpower, we have to see that that manpower is physically fit, and that is one of the tremendous problems that face us, especially in East Africa today. In that tremendous area which lies between the Equator and the tropic of Capricorn, there is something like 60 per cent. of the population who suffer from the ravages of the hookworm, and the illness that follows from it. My hon. Friend in reply may have something to say with regard to what is being done to overcome that disease, and to build up that manpower of which we want to make use today. There is no medical problem associated with the treatment of hookworm; it is principally an economic problem, and perhaps my hon. Friend might say a word upon it.
There is another important aspect in building up this manpower strength physically and that is, the ravages of the tsetse fly. Large areas of the Sudan, East Africa and particularly Tanganyika, to the extent of two-thirds in that particular colony, are ravaged completely by that pest, which has a tremendously deleterious affect on African physique, because it affects the individual, and the game which is the host of the fly destroys the crops. Therefore, the African is suffering in respect of his crops but in addition, under the white man's law—and this is where I hope, in view of the opening statement of the hon. and gallant Member, that we will have the support of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—in East Africa today the native is not permitted to shoot the game unless he discovers it in the actual act of destroying his crops. Then he has no weapon other than a bow and arrow with which to attack an elephant or a lion, which is an impossible situation. So he is robbed of the game which might, in the bad seasons, when the crops are bad, go towards building up his physique to give us this manpower which we so badly need. I suggest that the native should have restored to him his ancient


right to shoot game as part of the solution of this problem which has been raised tonight.
I am perfectly prepared to welcome whatever help we may get in manpower towards building up this nation of ours and the Colonies, but I am not in the least keen on seeing us building up African or other colonial physical foddar in order to provide troops for this country in carrying out, perhaps, policies in the forming of which no consultation has taken place with the Africans themselves. I strongly reject that part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech in which he suggested that the African might make a contribution to our military power.

Brigadier Mackeson: Perhaps I did not make it clear that in my view all these men must be volunteers. In those circumstances surely the hon. Member, whatever his views, might change that opinion?

9.59 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Gandar Dower: It is one of the most pleasing features of the House that in Adjournment Debates party is very largely forgotten. At the end of a day's fray on contentious matters we feel drawn together on an Adjournment Debate as if we were brothers. Tonight I hope I shall throw nothing contentious into the ring, and I am delighted to find how we are all interested in the Empire. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson) has indeed at a most opportune moment raised this question of colonial manpower. I was grateful, too, for the tribute to the work of the King's African Rifles paid by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White)——

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]

Mr. Gandar Dower: As I was saying, I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Canterbury for paying tribute to the King's African Rifles with whom my brother had the honour of serving during the war until he lost his life between Mombasa and Ceylon. From his letters and personal remarks to me, I can agree

wholeheartedly with the tribute paid to that loyal native regiment. I would like to dwell on a point which has not been over-emphasised in this Debate. I refer to the question of female labour from the Colonial Empire being brought to help in our homes. Today we in this country badly need domestic assistance in our hospitals, institutions and homes. Our wives know what it is to have a lot of responsibility and work. Often our womenfolk have no assistance whatever in order to keep their homes straight during the child-bearing period. I suggest to the Under-Secretary of State that he should seriously consider the introduction of domestic help from our Colonial Empire if people can be found who are willing to come to this country. Distance is no object when we have the assistance of air travel. The Under-Secretary was recently promoted from the Ministry responsible for air travel—I hope it was promotion. I hope he will consider the quick transport of domestic assistance which is so badly needed by our housewives.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Wilkes: This Debate has revealed a very general anxiety from both sides of the House lest the Colonial Office and the War Office between them should be losing an immense opportunity through a lack of imaginative approach in this matter. During the Debate on the Army Estimates attention was drawn to the fact that a proposed run-down of Colonial Forces was planned, from 329,000 in 1946–47 to 87,300 in 1947–48. Attention was drawn to this fact from both sides of the House, for there is nothing between us on this matter. I wish to ask the Under-Secretary whether there has been any reconsideration of these figures within recent months as a result of the growing realisation that this country is in a very serious position indeed from a defence point of view, owing to shortage of manpower. I ask him to assure us that there is nothing between the Colonial Office and the War Office in this connection, and that they are both in accord that much greater use than ever before should now be made of the vast reservoir of goodwill towards this country that lies within the Colonies.
Will this matter be brought to the attention of the Defence Committee as


soon as possible as a matter of urgency so that the whole problem, the whole role of the Colonial Forces may be considered afresh, in the light of the new needs of Imperial defence? I ask the Under-Secretary to assure us that this topic will be looked upon again in a much more serious manner than it has been looked upon during the last 12 months. Hon. Members on both sides have made frequent reference to this, as they can bear witness. I want to make one more specific point which is that men and women in the Colonial Empire are no longer content merely with the more menial tasks in the Colonial Army. They are not content with pioneer work. They want the full status and dignity of citizenship with the concomitant military responsibility which it carries with it.
Therefore, I want to go into this matter of the colour bar generally, and ask the representative of the Colonial Office some specific questions. Is it intended to relax the colour bar to allow Africans, as well as Indians, an opportunity, should their abilities merit it, of going to Sandhurst and of participating in the senior officers' courses in this country, or is there going to be a reversion to the old prewar practice of allowing Indians, possibly, but certainly not Africans, into the higher Forces' establishments? Voluntary recruitment, from my own experience of the Colonial Empire, will be much accelerated and increased if we make it clear to the colonial peoples that they come into the British Army, if they come in at all, with a full responsibility and a full right of Imperial citizenship, and that no position, no course, no establishment shall be barred to them should they show the necessary initiative and ability to benefit by it. I see that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite is in agreement with me on this matter. It is a most important matter, there is nothing between the two sides of the House on this question, and I hope that the Colonial Office will treat it as a matter of urgency.
We know that Africa has paid great dividends by the very enlightened policy which has been adopted in this matter. The R.A.F. West African fighter squadrons fought magnificently during the war, and there are men employed as colonial welfare officers who gained very high decorations for gallantry for their work during the war. There is no reason why the R.A.F. liberalism should not be

translated to the other Services, and every opportunity given to our colonial fellow citizens to play the fullest part possible. I would like to question the Colonial Office on this matter of the colour bar. There has been a certain difference about the rate of progress in this matter, and I would like the Colonial Office to give us an assurance that no opposition, from whatever quarter, will be allowed to stand in the way of the most vigorous efforts being made to utilise to the full that magnificent feeling of loyalty made manifest to us during the war and which still exists among our colonial fellow citizens, so that they may relieve this country of the very heavy burden which up to recent years this country has borne almost alone.

10.8 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I think that much of what was said by the hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Wilkes) will be agreed by my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and that there are many of them who will feel that the more the Colonial Office encourages these various countries in this direction the more we shall support them. This Debate has ranged considerably between the economic and the defence aspects, and I am inclined to think that, contrary to the point of view put forward by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), it is on defence, perhaps, that we should strictly concentrate, because I believe myself that the essential thing, if one hopes for peace, is to ensure, first of all, that there is justice, and from that justice peace, and from that peace, prosperity. If one places economics too high in the order of priority, one endeavours to obtain what one hopes for without realising what one's obligations are, and, in this particular respect, I would like to emphasise that, before we accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), that colonial labour rather than foreign labour should come here in order to help us with our manpower difficulties, there is a great deal to be done. The future of the British Commonwealth and the Colonial Empire depends on how far we are able to develop our plans for regional defence. I believe that that, at once, brings us back again to the economic aspect. We cannot have a regional defence with any hope of success unless we assure, at the same time, that not only have we the man


power for the fighting Forces and for the defence Forces, but also the industrial power with which to equip them.
In the present age, there is no one fact which stands out more clearly than that we must consider the dispersal, of our defences, and, therefore, the dispersal of our industries. I know that many industrialists feel it is extremely difficult to do that, but I believe that, unless the Economic Advisory Council, which I have mentioned in other Debates, is given some priority for defence, and is not allowed to regard defence as outside its field altogether, and unless the advisory council for the Colonies considers the matter of defence, and particularly the building of dispersed industries throughout the Commonwealth and the Empire, it will be failing in its duty, and will be quite unable to achieve what it has set out to do.
Therefore, one thing on which we must concentrate more than anything else is not so much to bring manpower from the Colonies to this country, but to try to train the manpower in the Colonies and, indeed, in the Dominions as well, so that they may become skilled technicians alongside our own men, and, if necessary, that we should be prepared to send out our technicians to help train them so that they can build up industries in the Colonies, and so that we can base regional defence, not merely on manpower, but also on the great industries to keep them fully equipped. I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies, he will touch on this matter, with particular reference to the Economic Advisory Council, because the Colonial Secretary said a short while ago that he was hoping to publish a report of the Council. I rather gathered from his remarks that it was hoped to publish it this Session, but, so far, we have not had it. I feel that it is of immense importance, and I only hope that it will include the defence aspect, even though we have never had an assurance from the Colonial Secretary that they would be considering that.

10.13 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ivor Thomas): The hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson) has opened a far-ranging Debate in an unexpected manner, and I am sure that we are all grateful to him for having done so. I am particularly

grateful to him both for the manner in which he spoke, and for the sentiments which he uttered, and, in particular, for two statements he made, one that, whereas there might have been exploitation in the past, we were determined that there should be none in the future, and, the other, that the development of the Colonies which is now proposed is primarily for the benefit of the Colonies, and secondarily for ourselves. I am sure it will be of the utmost value in the Colonial Empire that these sentiments should go out as the unanimous wish of the whole House, and that, on such a matter, there is no division of party. I have said that this has been a far-ranging Debate; indeed, at one time, I thought I heard the opening shots of the campaign which is due to begin tomorrow.
I cannot let pass the accusation that those of us who sit on these benches rejoice in the fact that we are a third-class Power. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), I repudiate the suggestion that we are a third-class Power. It has fallen to me in the past year to take part in a number of international conferences, and I have never had that feeling. The voice of the United Kingdom commands no less respect now than it ever did. But I will say this, and I believe this may enable us all to reach agreement on this question in the House tonight. We should be a third-class Power if we had to rely solely on these islands. If we had to rely solely on the 47 million people in these islands, great as I believe are our natural virtues and great as are the fertility of our soil and the riches underneath it, we might indeed sink to the level of a third-class Power. But we are, and shall remain, a first-class Power, because we are more than this Island. We are the centre of a great Commonwealth and Empire, and as long as the United Kingdom remains the centre of that great Commonwealth and Empire our voice will never fail to command attention in the councils of the world.
Some general points of colonial policy have been raised in this Debate, and it might be as well that I should try to deal with some of them before we pass on to the specific questions. The hon. and gallant Member for Hythe who opened the Debate spoke of the proposed increased development of the Colonial Empire, and he has pointed out with great truth, as


I have observed, that this is being done primarily for the benefit of the colonies and secondarily for the benefit of the United Kingdom. I do not think there is need to differentiate too sharply between these two aspects of the matter. There is at this moment a double interest, and the theme to which we are working in the Colonial Office is that Great Britain's need is the colonies' opportunity. It is a unique opportunity for us to help ourselves and, at the same time, to lead the Colonial Empire to standards that have not hitherto been thought possible.
It may be as well also if at the outset I dispose of the question of emigration from Malta, which was raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is the case that Malta is an over-populated island—a very gallant island which I am sure we all wish well—and its population is increasing at a very rapid rate. Indeed, the figures in my possession are even higher than those which were quoted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman; but all figures are somewhat conjectual because they are based on the ration cards and not upon an adequate census. But certainly the population of Malta is rapidly increasing. Its gross birthrate is over 30 per thousand, and its net reproductive rate is one of the few in the West of Europe to exceed unity. Before the war there was a migration of about 1,500 a year, and in recent years, of course, the number has been reduced to a trickle. It was 80 in the year 1944–45; 312 in 1945–46, and 979 in the last eight months of 1946—the last period for which figures are available.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned that there were about 10,000 Maltese desiring to emigrate. The latest information which I have is that in March, 1947, there were 11,692 Maltese who desired to emigrate, and I am happy to say that a very large number of countries would like to receive the Maltese as emigrants. The main, and almost the whole, difficulty is shipping. A number of useful consultations have taken place. The hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned Australia as a most suitable place for emigration. The Maltese Commissioner of Labour and Emigration visited Australia in April this year and had long and helpful discussions with the Maltese Trade Commissioner and the Australian authorities, who showed themselves anxious to promote Maltese immigration as soon as shipping permitted.

The subject was also fully discussed with Mr. Calwell, the Australian Minister for Immigration and Information during his visit to this country cently. The question has been raised with New Zealand also, but it is understood that, owing to their own housing difficulties, the New Zealand Government are not contemplating any comprehensive scheme.
Individual immigrants, in number about 50, during the past year have made their own way to South Africa and Southern Rhodesia and have been accepted as settlers. If transport were easier it is probable that many more would follow their example. We ourselves took, in the last eight months of 1946 740 Maltese. The number has steadily increased through 1947. While the majority have faced no difficulty in obtaining work, there has been a certain number of cases, notably among seamen, where on arrival they have not been guaranteed work and have fallen on public assistance. I ought also to mention that the United States have been very helpful in this matter, especially in the question of transport and last month a party of 240 emigrants left. It is the first large party since the war.
I turn now to the main question raised tonight, the question of using the manpower in the colonies, which has rightly been described tonight as one of our great untapped assets. Perhaps, I may at the outset give a picture of the general problem, which varies from region to region. In the West Indies, for example, owing to causes well understood, there is unemployment. In West Africa I should say that supply and demand are practically in equilibrium. In East Africa there is a great scarcity of labour at the present time. There is competition for labour, for example, between the sisal industry and the groundnuts scheme. There are many industries which are finding it quite difficult to obtain labour. In the Far East there is, I should say from my own experience, again a shortage of labour, at any rate, in particular directions.
One of the great problems—perhaps, the greatest problem—that we have to face in colonial labour is that of bringing about a vastly increased productivity. Here, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) touched on a very real problem. There are some


people, in moments of forgetfulness or petulance, who accuse the African of being lazy. I do not think that that is the position. The African is easy going but not, I think, lazy. The heart of the problem is that ages of disease and undernourishment and malnutrition have weakened his capacity for work; and one of the main problems before us is to restore that capacity for work by medical measures and by better nutrition, and, as the House well knows, many steps are being taken in that direction. I shall not particularise about the points raised by my hon. Friend, such as hookworm, because they are dealt with fairly fully in the Report of the Colonial Medical Research Council published recently. If we can solve this problem, if we can raise the productivity of colonial labour, and especially of African labour, the possibilities before the world, and before our own Empire in particular, are very great. The hon. and gallant Member for Hythe spoke particularly about the use of Africans in the Forces, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) expressed appreciation of his remarks.
I was invited by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) to give answers which he has so far failed to obtain. I do not know whether I shall satisfy him, but at any rate I shall do my best to give such answers. It is almost platitudinous to say that the general objectives of British colonial policy are self-government, self-finance and self-defence, and I ask hon. Members to study the implications of that policy. It is not possible to have real self-government unless a country is able to look after its own defences. It would be necessary, of course, to take part in international arrangements; but a country such as the United Kingdom has to do that, and that is not a limiting factor to self-defence. There could be no real self-government if a country were forced to look elsewhere for its local defence, any more than there could be real self-government if it had to look elsewhere for its finance. Therefore, these are two of the main pillars of British colonial policy: there must be self-finance and self-defence.
It has been and is our policy to raise local forces; those forces have acquitted themselves extremely well in the recent war, and I was very glad to hear the

tributes that were paid to the colonial forces. The hon. and gallant Member for Hythe asked for forces that would be rather large compared with those which exist at the present time. He expressed surprise that there had been such a big demobilisation of colonial forces, and deprecated it.

Brigadier Mackeson: Only as compared with the British troops.

Mr. Thomas: Quite so. The point I wish to make will bear on his remarks. It is the case that Africans, no less than other persons—and in some ways more than other persons—are home-loving people. Like every one else, they wish to get back to "their wives and children, and I have no doubt that if the British Forces were placed in the same situation they also would have diminished in the same ratio.

Major Haughton: Will the Under-Secretary come back to the practical issue? He touched on the shortage of labour for sisal in Kenya, and then switched on to another subject. What do the Government intend to do about that shortage of labour for sisal?

Mr. Thomas: In the minute and a half available I could not give a full answer to the hon. and gallant Member, and perhaps I could write to him. I should like to go on with what I was saying about the Forces. The hon. and gallant Member for Hythe was thinking in terms of very large Forces in referring to a corps in East and in West Africa. At the present time regular units are maintained in East and West Africa under the control of the War Office—to whom, of course, detailed questions should be addressed—each of about divisional strength, trained in modern warfare and capable of expansion in time of war. It would be difficult, of course, to employ such troops in all theatres; climatic conditions enter into the matter, and, to some extent, social questions also. They were, however, used in other places in the Empire in the last war; the hon. and gallant Member mentioned Burma particularly, where both East and West African troops fought gallantly.
I have mentioned social questions, but I must ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to provide my hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Wilkes) with detailed


answers to the matter he raised, and I will try to communicate with him. I can say now that wherever the Colonial Office are responsible we do not tolerate a colour bar. From time to time I have had to deal with such questions arising in the colonies, and we have never countenanced a colour bar, and are in entire sympathy with his desire. Self-defence and self-finance must go together, and that does impose a limiting factor on the number of troops that can be raised. Until we can raise the economic standards of the colonies it is impossible to raise their

forces to the level desired by the hon. and gallant Member who opened the Debate. My final word must be to say: We must never think of these troops as being of benefit to the United Kingdom alone. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe would agree. We must think of them as the troops of the particular colony.

It being Half-past Ten o'Clock Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.